Annual Plan

Fiscal Year 2004

U.S. Department of Education

In this great land called America,

no child will be left behind.

 —President George W. Bush

Annual Plan

Fiscal Year 2004

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, D.C.

March 31, 2003
U.S. Department of Education

Rod Paige

Secretary

Office of the Deputy Secretary

William D. Hansen

Deputy Secretary

Strategic Accountability Service

Hugh Walkup

Director

March 2003

This report is public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted.

While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: U.S.

Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Strategic Accountability Service,

U.S. Department of Education FY 2004 Annual Plan, Washington D.C., 2003.

To obtain copies of this report,

write to: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of Education,

P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794-1398;

or fax your request to: (301) 470-1244;

or e-mail your request to: edpubs@inet.ed.gov

or call in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4-ED-PUBS). If 877 service is not

yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327 (1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call

1-877-576-7734 or order online at: www.ed.gov/about/ordering.jsp.

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at:

www.ed.gov/pubs/planrpts.html.

On request, this publication is available in alternate formats, such as Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette. For more information, please contact the

Department’s Alternate Format Center at (202) 260-9895 or (202) 205-8113.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 iii

Message from the Secretary

Last year President Bush redefined the federal role in education when he signed the No Child Left

Behind Act. Based on the simple premise that every child can learn, the President established four

basic principles to guide our efforts to accomplish that vision: accountability, flexibility, expanded

parental choice, and doing what works. That vision continues to guide the

Administration’s education efforts today.

Another key event of 2002 was my release of the Department’s 2002–2007

Strategic Plan. This document embraces both the principles of No Child

Left Behind and the principles of the President’s Management Agenda. By

focusing the work of the Department on those ideas, the Department will

join America’s parents and schools in working effectively to leave no child

behind.

This document represents the second year of the strategic plan, and the

passage of time has brought sharper focus to the fundamental shift made

last year. Since the signing of No Child Left Behind, the Department has

implemented the law with grants being made to every state in the nation.

We have begun to distribute the increasing levels of federal support to

states and school districts in programs that are actually designed to increase

student learning. The Department received its first clean audit in many

years, and it started the One-ED management reform process to bring

strategic review to the means used by the Department to carry out its mission.

This year will bring similar achievements. The impact of No Child Left Behind will truly be felt

among parents, students, teachers, and administrators. The public will be able to point to programs

that work for children, instead of just for institutions. The Department will make progress toward

greater management excellence, and we will work with Congress to bring those principles of

accountability, flexibility, choice, and effective practice to special education, adult and technical

education, and higher education.

This FY 2004 Annual Plan provides the nation’s citizens with the transparent standards against

which our work can be judged. The plan outlines the strategies and actions we will undertake to

achieve our goals. It defines the measures and targets by which we will assess our success.

The plan sets the bar for success. However, we will not reach that bar alone. Parents, teachers,

state and local officials, college professors and administrators, members of Congress, and the staff

of countless other federal, state, and local agencies will all play a role. But we will take the

responsibility for achieving the goals laid out in this plan. The country may judge us by our work

as we strive to ensure that no child is left behind.
iv Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Mission

To ensure equal access

to education

and to promote

educational excellence

throughout the nation.

U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 v

Contents

Message from the Secretary .............................................................................................................. iii

Mission ................................................................................................................................................................ iv

Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 1

About the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 Annual Plan ............................................................................................... 2

No Child Left Behind ............................................................................................................................................. 2

Establishing Management Excellence at the U.S. Department of Education .......................................... 4

Federal and Departmental Management Reform ................................................................................... 4

One-ED: Five-Year Human Capital, Strategic Sourcing, and Restructuring Plan ........................... 4

Turning Plans into Action .................................................................................................................................... 5

Linking Employee Performance with the Department’s Goals and Objectives ...................................... 6

The Challenge .......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Goals and Objectives ................................................................................................................................ 9

Strategic Goal 1: Create a Culture of Achievement ................................................................................13

Objective 1.1: Link federal education funding to accountability for results....................................16

Objective 1.2: Increase flexibility and local control .............................................................................22

Objective 1.3: Increase information and options for parents ..............................................................25

Objective 1.4: Encourage the use of scientifically based methods

within federal education programs ................................................................................29

Strategic Goal 2: Improve Student Achievement .................................................................................... 31

Objective 2.1: Ensure that all students read on grade level by the

third grade ..........................................................................................................................34

Objective 2.2: Improve mathematics and science achievement for

all students .........................................................................................................................37

Objective 2.3: Improve the performance of all high school students ................................................40

Objective 2.4: Improve teacher and principal quality ..........................................................................46

Objective 2.5: Improve U.S. students’ knowledge of world languages,

regions, and international issues and build international

ties in the field of education ...........................................................................................49

Strategic Goal 3: Develop Safe Schools and Strong Character ........................................................... 51

Objective 3.1: Ensure that our nation’s schools are safe and drug free and

that students are free of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs ......................................54

Objective 3.2: Promote strong character and citizenship among our

nation’s youth ....................................................................................................................57

Strategic Goal 4: Transform Education into an Evidence-Based Field ..............................................59

Objective 4.1: Raise the quality of research funded or conducted by

the Department..................................................................................................................62
vi Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 4.2: Increase the relevance of our research in order to meet the

needs of our customers ...................................................................................................65

Strategic Goal 5: Enhance the Quality of and Access to Postsecondary and

Adult Education ...............................................................................................................67

Objective 5.1: Reduce the gaps in college access and completion among

student populations differing by race/ethnicity,

socioeconomic status, and disability while increasing the educational

attainment of all ................................................................................................................ 70

Objective 5.2: Strengthen accountability of postsecondary education institutions .......................74

Objective 5.3: Establish effective funding mechanisms for

postsecondary education .................................................................................................76

Objective 5.4: Strengthen Historically Black Colleges and Universities,

Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges

and Universities .................................................................................................................78

Objective 5.5: Enhance the literacy and employment skills of

American adults.................................................................................................................80

Objective 5.6: Increase the capacity of U.S. postsecondary education institutions to

teach world languages, area studies, and international issues..................................83

Strategic Goal 6: Establish Management Excellence throughout the

Department of Education ..............................................................................................85

Objective 6.1: Develop and maintain financial integrity and management

and internal controls.........................................................................................................88

Objective 6.2: Improve the strategic management of the Department’s human capital ................ 91

Objective 6.3: Manage information technology resources, using electronic government,

to improve services for our customers and partners...................................................94

Objective 6.4: Modernize the Student Financial Assistance programs and reduce

their high-risk status ........................................................................................................97

Objective 6.5: Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions

to results ...........................................................................................................................100

Objective 6.6: Leverage the contributions of faith-based and community organizations to

increase the effectiveness of Department programs .................................................102

Objective 6.7: By becoming a high-performance, customer-focused organization,

earn the President’s Quality Award .............................................................................. 105

Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan ....................................... 107

Appendixes ................................................................................................................................................... 119

A. Budget-to-Objective Crosswalk ............................................................................................................. 120

B. Action Step Crosswalk: 2003-2004 ...................................................................................................... 123

C. Information Quality Guidelines .............................................................................................................. 124

D. Overview of New Directions for Program Evaluation ........................................................................ 127

Glossary of Abbreviations and Acronyms ........................................................................... 135

Bibliography ................................................................................................................................................141
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 1 Introduction
2 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Introduction

About the Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 Annual Plan

Last year Secretary Rod Paige released the Department’s 2002–2007 Strategic Plan. This plan

established six ambitious goals for the agency and for the nation. It identified specific performance

measures and annual targets that give substance to

the goals. It outlined the Department’s strategies to

reach its goals. (The plan is online at http://

www.ed.gov/pubs/stratplan2002-07.)

The Strategic Plan integrates the President’s No

Child Left Behind initiative with the President’s

Management Agenda (PMA). Bold policy underlies

our goals and objectives. Effective management will

ensure that we achieve them.

The Department’s Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Plan implements the Strategic Plan. In addition to

specifying measures of each objective, it contains action steps to implement each objective’s

strategies. Our Executive Management Team will continuously track these action steps. Members

of Congress, stakeholders, and the general public can view, with great transparency, our plans for

putting ideas into action. Employees throughout the Department can gain greater insight into how

their work connects with the results we are attempting to achieve.

We recently released our FY 2002 Performance and Accountability Report, which provides

information on our performance for that year and includes our financial statements. We have made

substantial progress, but we remain committed to improving these results. The action steps in the

FY 2004 Annual Plan show how we will continue our work to transform the federal role in

education and to improve performance in our nation’s schools, especially as the landmark No Child

Left Behind Act becomes fully implemented.

No Child Left Behind

One year after President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

(NCLB), state officials, administrators, and teachers across the country are hard at work making

changes designed to help ensure that by 2013–14, every student who attends an American school

will be proficient in reading and mathematics. This far-reaching, bipartisan reauthorization of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is based on accountability for results, choice,

proven educational methods, and flexibility and local control in federal education programs.

In response to NCLB, states are strengthening their accountability systems by setting tough annual

progress objectives and expanding the assessments that will be used to measure that progress.

School districts are emphasizing efforts to improve low-performing schools while providing new

options for parents of students attending schools that do not improve, such as the opportunity to

transfer to a better-performing school or to use federal funds to obtain supplemental educational

services from the provider of their choice. Secretary Paige and Department leadership have worked

No Child Left Behind is more

than a slogan. It is a promise

that the Department of Education

intends to keep.

—2002–2007 Strategic Plan
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 3

closely with state officials to coordinate the implementation of NCLB. All 50 states and the District

of Columbia submitted their accountability plans on time. Six states submitted their plans early

and we have already approved them. Department staff are visiting each state to review its

accountability plans and discuss NCLB implementation.

Schools are using assessment data to identify areas where instruction must be improved and are

adopting proven educational practices to make the changes needed to raise student achievement.

Parents are learning more than ever before about how well schools are educating their children

from the state and local “report cards” required by NCLB, and they are using this information to

demand improvement from their schools and options for their children.

President Bush and the Congress have provided significant resources to leverage the improved state

and local accountability called for in NCLB. This reflected the President’s commitment to provide

more resources for education in exchange for stronger accountability for results and on condition

that federal funds be used to support proven educational methods.

Consistent with the traditionally limited federal role in the American system of education, this

investment is focused squarely on meeting the needs of students from economically disadvantaged

and minority backgrounds. These are students who have been left behind for too long, and

President Bush has made meeting their educational needs at the K–12 level and beyond a

cornerstone of his Administration.

For this reason, President Bush has focused new education investments on programs that have a

demonstrated record of success in improving educational outcomes, or on programs that have been

fundamentally reformed by the No Child Left Behind Act. The President also has targeted new

resources to programs that help to close the achievement gaps that persist among racial, ethnic,

and socioeconomic groups across the country.

About the new law Secretary Rod Paige declared, “Reform is no longer about access or money. It is

no longer about compliance or excuses. It is about improving student achievement by improving

the quality of the education we offer American students.”

The No Child Left Behind Act demands progress and achievement. It embraces the principles

supported by the President: accountability for results, flexibility and local control, expanded

parental options, and doing what works. Putting these principles into action will transform our

K–12 educational system. These same principles will serve as the foundation for upcoming reforms

in areas such as special education, vocational rehabilitation, higher education, adult education, and

vocational education.

Recent events have made clear that our schools must

prepare our students for the world around them and

protect them from its potential threats. Consequently,

this FY 2004 Annual Plan adds strategies and action

steps to help schools better prepare students to

understand and communicate with citizens from other

countries and cultures, and to expand our nation’s

collaboration with other nations’ educational systems.

These new strategic initiatives build on the United

States’ recently renewed membership in the United

Nations Educational, Social and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO). This plan also increases our support for state

and local efforts to strengthen the security of our

schools, including providing technical assistance in crisis response for school personnel, parents,

The tide of events since September

11, 2001, demands that schools

be better prepared. We’re here to

help—to provide more information

and resources and to highlight

programs we know... will help our

schools strengthen and improve

their emergency plans.

—Secretary Rod Paige
4 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

and students. More information on this initiative and school security is available at

www.ready.gov.

Establishing Management Excellence at the U.S. Department of

Education

The President and Secretary Paige have undertaken a number of measures to improve the

operational and strategic management of the federal government and the Department of Education.

They have used a series of tools—the President’s Management Agenda, the Blueprint for

Management Excellence, and One-ED, among others—to offer accountability, transparency, and

excellent management to Congress and taxpayers.

Federal and Departmental Management Reform

When Secretary Paige arrived at the Department, he found financial and management problems that

over time had damaged our credibility with Congress and the American public. Auditors had been

unable to issue a clean opinion on the Department’s financial statements for each of the prior three

fiscal years, the federal student assistance programs remained a fixture on the General Accounting

Office’s High-Risk List, and information technology security and internal control issues were not

being addressed appropriately. Secretary Paige attacked these problems head-on.

In April 2001, Secretary Paige assigned a team of senior career managers—called the Management

Improvement Team (MIT)—the task of identifying and fixing the most urgent management problems

at the Department. This team developed a Blueprint for Management Excellence (Blueprint) that, in

addition to overall strategies, now includes 140 action items designed to address long-standing

management concerns. (The Blueprint is online at www.ed.gov/inits/mit/index.html.)

While the work of the MIT was already well under way, it was greatly strengthened with the release

of the President’s Management Agenda (PMA), a comprehensive plan to improve the performance

of the federal government. The PMA identifies five government-wide goals: the strategic

management of human capital, competitive sourcing, improved financial management, expanded

electronic government (e-gov), and budget and performance integration. These goals have been

integrated into the Department’s strategic goal number six, “Establish Management Excellence”

and, more important, into the efforts of the Department to improve its management.

The formation of the MIT was just the first step. Subsequently, Secretary Paige has taken other

important actions to improve the Department’s management structure and address pressing issues,

including the following: (1) creating the Executive Management Team (EMT), which consists of top

political appointees and career senior managers who oversee all management improvement

processes; (2) establishing a Culture of Accountability Team to better ingrain a culture of

accountability throughout the Department; and (3) partnering with the National Academy of Public

Administration, the Private Sector Council, and the Council for Excellence in Government to

develop a five-year human capital, strategic sourcing, and restructuring plan.

One-ED: Five-Year Human Capital, Strategic Sourcing, and

Restructuring Plan

To meet the objectives in the President’s Management Agenda, which require all federal agencies to

develop competitive sourcing, restructuring, and human capital plans, the Department has
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 5

developed and is implementing One-ED. One-ED, approved by the Secretary in June 2002, seeks to

define a new way of doing business by analyzing all primary work processes in order to determine

the best way to accomplish work, regardless of how it was accomplished in the past. The One-ED

teams, made up of career employees, are chartered to create a vision of reengineered business

processes that takes advantage of modern best practices, information technology, and performance

enhancements. These selected business processes will be subject to the competitive sourcing

decision process in accordance with the President’s Management Agenda. Once the new, more

efficient business processes are defined, we will structure the organization in a manner that best

supports the new process. The form and structure of the organization will follow the function of

the reengineered business processes. The human capital portion of One-ED addresses the human

capital needs required to best implement and sustain the new processes. Learning tracks will lead

employees through progressive levels of responsibilities and skill development to meet the needs of

our work processes. One-ED seeks to address systemic work and organizational issues by focusing

on work processes rather than on just changing organization structure.

Turning Plans into Action

Secretary Paige has said on many occasions that he does not want the Strategic Plan to be a

“trophy to hang on the wall.” He knows that it will become a truly useful document only when it is

integrated into the fabric of daily life at the Department. To make this happen, we launched an

education campaign to ensure that every manager and employee in the Department understands

the Department’s new direction, and we are aligning the work of our offices, teams, and individual

employees with our strategic goals and objectives.

While the Strategic Plan gives direction to the Department—and transparency to the public—greater

detail is needed to put the plan into action. This Annual Plan provides that detail in the form of the

action steps listed in this document. Each action step will be “owned” by an office, which will be

held accountable for getting the work done. To connect this process with ongoing management

improvement efforts, most of the action steps within goal six have been drawn directly from the

Blueprint and the Culture of Accountability Report and aligned with the President’s Management

Agenda.

The Executive Management Team (EMT) oversees the implementation of the Strategic Plan, as well

as the other management initiatives, to ensure alignment and coordination. The EMT utilizes a

database to track the progress of the action steps, allowing every person within the Department to

Planning and Performance Management Database
6 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

know the status of those steps. The database is updated regularly; and each action item is assigned

green (everything is on track), yellow (deadlines are slipping or the action step needs attention), or

red (intervention needed immediately). This performance management system identifies activities

that need attention and recognizes successes. It charts our progress, both internally and externally,

to implement our strategies.

The Department publishes a monthly list of action items that have been completed successfully or

are proceeding exceptionally well. We also intend to provide tangible rewards for great work. The

Department is creating a cash bonus and recognition program that will reward individuals and

teams for exceptional performance on these action steps.

Linking Employee Performance with the Department’s Goals and

Objectives

While the awards program will recognize individual and group performance, it is critical to link all

of the Department’s employee performance plans to the President’s Management Agenda (PMA),

the Strategic Plan, and the Department’s other strategic priorities. The Department has adopted an

integrated approach to reach this objective.

Assistant secretaries have been given performance contracts that are reviewed and signed by the

Secretary. These contracts are based on the 8 to 10 highest-priority action steps for which the

assistant secretaries are responsible. Performance contracts for assistant secretaries will be updated

to reflect the emerging priorities of the Department that affect their programs.

The appraisal system for members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) has been changed to

require that their performance plans be directly linked to the PMA, the Strategic Plan, and the

Department’s other strategic priorities. Performance plans will be reviewed on an annual basis to

ensure that they are aligned and linked with the Department’s strategic priorities. The SES

appraisal system will undergo further revision to ensure that it takes advantage of flexibilities in

the Homeland Security Act.

A new Education Department Performance Appraisal System (EDPAS) has been developed and

implemented for General Schedule (GS) employees to link their performance standards to the

Department’s strategic priorities. Metrics will be developed to evaluate the effectiveness of the

system.

SES = Senior Executive Service

GS = General Schedule

Aligning Performance Appraisals with Strategic Goals and Objectives
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 7

The Challenge

The Department of Education does not operate schools or train teachers or teach students. In

America, education is primarily a state and local responsibility. Federal support for education,

although growing to 9 percent in the President’s proposed budget, is a small part of total education

funding. Our challenge is to improve our support for state, local and institutional partners, who

have much more direct ability to influence the outcomes we seek. For that purpose, we have

undertaken this FY 2004 implementation of our Strategic Plan to ensure that our Department

fulfills our responsibilities effectively and efficiently, targets our resources on our strategic

priorities, and works effectively with our partners to ensure equal access to education and promote

educational excellence throughout the nation.

A year ago, our nation embarked on an historic journey—a

journey that embraced the President’s hopeful vision that says:

“Education is a civil right—just as much a civil right as the

right to vote or to be treated equally. And it is the duty of our

nation to teach every child equally, not just some of them.”

—Secretary Rod Paige

Goals and

Objectives

9
10 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Strategic Goals

Goal One:

Create a Culture of Achievement

1.1 Link federal education funding to accountability for results.

1.2 Increase flexibility and local control.

1.3 Increase information and options for parents.

1.4 Encourage the use of scientifically based methods within federal education

programs.

Goal Two:

Improve Student Achievement

2.1 Ensure that all students read on grade level by third grade.

2.2 Improve mathematics and science achievement for all students.

2.3 Improve the performance of all high school students.

2.4 Improve teacher and principal quality.

2.5 Improve U.S. students’ knowledge of world languages, regions, and

international issues and build international ties in the field of education.

Goal Three:

Develop Safe Schools and Strong Character

3.1 Ensure that our nation’s schools are safe and drug free and that students are

free of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs.

3.2 Promote strong character and citizenship among our nation’s youth.

Goal Four:

Transform Education into an Evidence-Based Field

4.1 Raise the quality of research funded or conducted by the Department.

4.2 Increase the relevance of our research in order to meet the needs of our

customers.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 11

Goal Five:

Enhance the Quality of and Access to

Postsecondary and Adult Education

5.1 Reduce the gaps in college access and completion among student

populations differing by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability

while increasing the educational attainment of all.

5.2 Strengthen accountability of postsecondary education institutions.

5.3 Establish effective funding mechanisms for postsecondary education.

5.4 Strengthen Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving

Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities.

5.5 Enhance the literacy and employment skills of American adults.

5.6 Increase the capacity of U.S. postsecondary education institutions to teach

world languages, area studies, and international issues.

Goal Six:

Establish Management Excellence

6.1 Develop and maintain financial integrity and management and internal

controls.

6.2 Improve the strategic management of the Department’s human capital.

6.3 Manage information technology resources, using electronic government, to

improve services for our customers and partners.

6.4 Modernize the Student Financial Assistance programs and reduce their

high-risk status.

6.5 Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to

results.

6.6 Leverage the contributions of faith-based and community organizations to

increase the effectiveness of Department programs.

6.7 By becoming a high-performance, customer-focused organization, earn the

President’s Quality Award.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 13 Goal 1
14 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

1 STRATEGIC GOAL ONE:

Create a Culture

of Achievement

The purpose of prosperity is to

make sure the American dream

touches every willing heart.

The purpose is to leave no one out —

to leave no child behind.

—President George W. Bush
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 15

Individuals and groups who work in social systems such as the American

education system are strongly influenced by the system’s culture. To improve

such a system, the most potent strategy for change is cultural change.

Therefore, through the effective implementation of the No Child Left Behind

Act, we are creating a culture characterized by accountability for results,

flexibility and local control, expanded parental options, and the use of

instructional practices based on scientific research—and we are embedding these

principles in programs and activities throughout the Department.

Approximately 5 percent of the Department’s FY 2004 budget request will

support Goal 1.

Objective 1.1

Link federal education funding to accountability for results.

Objective 1.2

Increase flexibility and local control.

Objective 1.3

Increase information and options for parents.

Objective 1.4

Encourage the use of scientifically based methods within federal education

programs.

1
16 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 1.1

To create a culture of achievement, we must demonstrate that achievement counts, at the local,

state, and federal levels. We are working with our partners to make accountability for results the

hallmark of our education system. In alignment with No Child Left Behind (NCLB), states are

developing systems that hold school districts and local schools accountable for results. Progress

by the states on a number of achievement indicators is being reported annually. Federal education

programs also are being held accountable. Those that do not demonstrate results in terms of

student outcomes are being reformed or eliminated.

The Department continuously tracks the performance of each program with an appropriation of at

least $20 million against updated and revised performance measures, which are tied to educational

outcomes and reflect the purposes of the programs. Program performance plans are an online

component of this FY 2004 Annual Plan and are on our Web site at http://www.ed.gov/pubs/

planrpts.html. See page 20 for a list of these programs.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 1.1

Strategy A: Help states implement their NCLB accountability plans

a. Provide support to states, districts, and organizations that assist states with implementing the

standards, testing and accountability provisions of the NCLB.

b. Identify model implementation of NCLB in selected states and schools.

c. Partner with the Education Commission of the States to track state implementation of NCLB.

d. Develop a new public service advertising campaign with leading business, government, and

education organizations in order to build awareness of the NCLB, including its accountability

provisions.

e. Provide technical assistance to ensure that new testing and accountability requirements in

NCLB are understood and met.

Strategy B: Provide technical assistance

a. Develop training and technical assistance modules and materials for states to assist them in

planning, implementing, and evaluating consumer-directed and community-based services for

successful community integration of persons with disabilities.

b. Through a collaborative effort of the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) and the

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP), intervene with states whose programs under

Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) and Vocational Rehabilitation (VR) are in the most need

and would most benefit from intense intervention to improve the performance of individuals

with disabilities.

Link federal education

funding to accountability

for results
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 17

c. Monitor state performance of the establishment of standards, assessments, and annual

measurable achievement objectives for ensuring English language proficiency and the academic

achievement of English language learners (ELLs).

d. Provide technical assistance to ensure that all students are included in state reading and

mathematics assessments and state accountability systems.

e. Provide information and technical assistance to tribal colleges to promote equitable

participation and enhance or develop their capacity in federal education programs.

f. Identify and disseminate information about monitoring practices to improve accountability of

state and local agencies.

g. Through the Performance Measurement Initiative, design and pilot-test a secondary and

postsecondary assessment and accountability system for academic and career and technical

education programs with the Performance-Based Data Management Initiative (PBDMI).

h. Provide technical assistance on scientifically based research and evaluation to state

departments of education and local school districts.

i. Develop technical assistance projects for state educational agencies (SEAs), local educational

agencies (LEAs), and institutions of higher education (IHEs) on educational technology–related

topics, such as virtual schools and statewide evaluations.

Strategy C: Create performance-based grants

a. Improve the monitoring of state grants in order to increase the focus on program goals and

improved student achievement.

b. Structure grant competitions to promote the development and rigorous evaluation of education

interventions and focus on program goals and achieving results.

c. Provide incentives for grant recipients to implement proven, replicable interventions on a largescale basis.

d. Revise selection criteria in program application packages to include program performance

measures. Encourage the use of these measures for program planning management and

evaluation.

e. Provide technical assistance to grantees and staff on the new application standards and on ways

to develop and use high-quality performance measures in the planning, management, and

evaluation of programs.

Strategy D: Develop plans and reports that tie funding to accountability

a. Improve the timeliness and quality of performance information on Department programs and

strategic objectives.
18 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

b. Improve the availability and use of program performance information for the budget decisions,

particularly the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) developed by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB).

c. Publish an annual national education performance report that provides data about state

progress on a number of K–16 indicators (data drawn largely from NCLB Consolidated State

Reports).

d. Develop and disseminate statutorily required reports to Congress in a timely manner.

Strategy E: Support Department programs that work

a. Improve the quality of program performance measures and increase the number of program

performance measures that focus on outcomes.

b. Develop common measures for selected areas (e.g., common measures for technical assistance).

c. Revise program performance indicators to focus on results and integrate them into the PBDMI.

d. Use national activities funds to develop and rigorously evaluate education interventions.

e. Develop and implement an evaluation plan that will produce rigorous information on the

effectiveness of Department programs and the effectiveness of interventions supported by

federal funding streams.

f. Convene nationally recognized research, training, and technical assistance experts to consider

issues involving the assessment of students with cognitive and/or severe other disabilities at

the secondary and postsecondary levels.

g. Convene nationally recognized research, training, and technical assistance experts to identify

child and family outcomes, performance indicators, and assessment methodologies to measure

progress of children from birth through five years of age who are served under the IDEA, Part C

and Part B, to determine the performance of programs.

Strategy F: Inform legislative proposals emphasizing accountability

a. Encourage congressional consideration of embedding accountability in education legislation.

Key to Tables on Pages 19–105

B = Basic. Achievement level used on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

M = Million

NA = Not available. Historical or trend data are not available for that year.

NM = New measure for FY 2004. The measure was not yet in place as an indicator for FY 2003.

P = Pending. Data are expected but not yet available.

Pr = Proficient. Achievement level used on the NAEP

PP = Percentage points. This is used to designate a future target on the basis of a baseline that has

not yet been set.

X = A target is not set because data will not be available for that year; the measure does not apply

for that year. This is used where the measure is an ongoing indicator but collections are biennial

or less frequent.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 19

Performance Measures for Objective 1.1

NA = Not available

Notes:

For FY 2004, two of these measures have been revised and the targets have been changed. Please see “Interim Adjustments to

the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

STATE ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEMS

Source: Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), State Assessment Tracking System.

Additional Information: For this indicator, a complete accountability system includes annual assessments in grades 3–8 in

mathematics and reading; the publication of adequate yearly progress targets for each student subgroup; the publication of

student achievement data (by school, district, and statewide) disaggregated by race/ethnicity, poverty, disability, and LimitedEnglish proficiency; and the choice provisions for students in low-performing schools. This entire system is not required to be

in place until the 2005–06 school year.

FEDERAL PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY

Source: Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary (ODS), Strategic Accountability Service (SAS), Analysis of the

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) scores.

Additional Information: The Department bases these measures on programs that are reviewed by OMB under the PART. We

define effective programs as those with scores of at least 50 percent on Section IV of the PART and compare the number of

effective programs with the number of programs that are reviewed under the PART. At this point only a relatively small

number of programs are reviewed under the PART process. However, over time, we expect that a greater number of programs

will be reviewed by this method.

FY 2004 Program Performance Plans for the following programs are an online component of this FY 2004 Annual Plan and

are located on the Department’s Web site at www.ed.gov/pubs/planrpts.html.

Measures

State

Accountability

Systems

The percentage of states with

complete school accountability

systems, including testing in

grades 3–8, in place as

required by the No Child Left

Behind Act.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA NA 40 50

Objective 1.1: Link Federal Education Funding to Accountability for Results

The percentage of Department

program dollars associated

with programs reviewed under

the PART process that

demonstrate effectiveness.

NA NA NA 55 60 65

The percentage of Department

programs reviewed under the

PART process that demonstrate

effectiveness.

NA NA NA 29 40 50

Federal

Program

Accountability
20 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Programs with Program Performance Plans

DEOA & HEA: Payments to guaranty agencies

DEOA & HEA: Student aid administration

EDA: Gallaudet University

EDA: National Technical Institute for the Deaf

ESEA: 21st Century community learning centers

ESEA: Advanced placement

ESEA: Character education

ESEA: Charter schools grants

ESEA: Early reading first

ESEA: Educational technology state grants

ESEA: English language acquisition state grants

ESEA: Even start

ESEA: Impact aid—Basic support payments

ESEA: Impact aid—Construction

ESEA: Impact aid—Payments for children with disabilities

ESEA: Impact aid—Payments for federal property

ESEA: Improving teacher quality state grants

ESEA: Indian education—Grants to local educational agencies

ESEA: Indian education—Special programs for Indian children

ESEA: Literacy through school libraries

ESEA: Magnet schools assistance

ESEA: Migrant education

ESEA: Neglected and delinquent

ESEA: Reading first state grants

ESEA: Reading is fundamental/Inexpensive book distribution

ESEA: Ready-to-learn television

ESEA: Safe and drug-free schools and communities—Federal activities and evaluation

ESEA: Safe and drug-free schools and communities—Mentoring program

ESEA: Safe and drug-free schools and communities—State grants

ESEA: State assessments

ESEA: State grants for innovative programs

ESEA: Teaching of traditional American history

ESEA: Title I grants to local educational agencies

ESEA: Transition to teaching

ESEA: Troops-to-teachers

ESEA: Voluntary public school choice

ESRA: National assessment

ESRA: Research, development, and dissemination

ESRA: Statistics

HEA: Aid for institutional development—Developing Hispanic-serving institutions

HEA: Aid for institutional development—Strengthening historically black colleges and universities

HEA: Aid for institutional development—Strengthening historically black graduate institutions

HEA: Aid for institutional development—Strengthening institutions (Part A)

HEA: Byrd honors scholarships

HEA: Federal direct student loan administration

HEA: Federal direct student loan subsidies

DEOA: Office for Civil Rights
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 21

WIA-AEFLA: Adult education state grants (The President's FY 2004 budget proposes to replace this program with Adult

Basic and Literacy Education State Grants.)

VTEA: Vocational education state grants (The President's FY 2004 budget proposes to replace this program with

Secondary and Technical Education State Grants.)

IDEA: Personnel preparation

IDEA: Preschool grants

IDEA: Research and innovation

IDEA: State improvement

IDEA: Technical assistance and dissemination

IDEA: Technology and media services

MVHAA: Education for homeless children and youths

RA: Demonstration and training programs

RA: Independent living—Centers

RA: Independent living—Services for older blind individuals

RA: Independent living—State grants

RA: National institute on disability and rehabilitation research

RA: Training

RA: Vocational rehabilitation state grants—Grants for Indians

RA: Vocational rehabilitation state grants—Grants to states

HEA: Federal supplemental educational opportunity grants

HEA: Federal TRIO programs

HEA: Federal work-study

HEA: Fund for the improvement of postsecondary education

HEA: Gaining early awareness and readiness for undergraduate programs (GEAR UP)

HEA: Graduate assistance in areas of national need (GAANN)

HEA: International education and foreign language studies—Domestic programs

HEA: Teacher quality enhancement

Howard University general support

Howard University hospital

IDEA: Grants for infants and families

IDEA: Grants to states

IDEA: Parent information centers

Key: AEFLA = Adult Education and Family Literacy Act

DEOA = Department of Education Organization Act

EDA = Education of the Deaf Act

ESEA = Elementary and Secondary Education Act

ESRA = Education Sciences Reform Act

HEA = Higher Education Act

IDEA = Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

MVHAA = McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act

RA = Rehabilitation Act

VTEA = Vocational and Technical Education Act

WIA = Workforce Investment Act

Programs with Program Performance Plans (continued)

HEA: Federal family education loans liquidating account outlays

HEA: Federal family education loan subsidies

HEA: Federal Perkins loans

HEA: Federal Pell grants

HEA: Federal student loan reserve fund outlays
22 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 1.2 Increase flexibility and

local control

As President Bush has said, “Local schools now have a mandate to reform and we are giving them

the freedom to reform.” In exchange for greater accountability for results, states, school districts,

and other grantees are receiving increased flexibility over the use of federal funds and are

experiencing greater responsiveness from the Department to their concerns. Information

technology initiatives are dramatically reducing the data-collection burden on state and local

officials by seamlessly collecting and disseminating performance information. Increased flexibility

is a core principle incorporated in all legislative proposals.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 1.2

Strategy A: Publicize flexibility provisions to the states

a. Aggressively publicize state flexibility opportunities through letters, conferences, and other

means.

b. Publish the State-Flex notice and select the states.

c. Provide technical assistance to targeted states to help them apply for and attain Ed-Flex status.

d. Develop and disseminate guidance on flexibility within the Elementary and Secondary

Education Act (ESEA) Title I schoolwide programs.

Strategy B: Publicize flexibility provisions to local districts

a. Publish the Local-Flex notice, hold competition, and select additional sites.

b. Continue a study about local barriers to using flexibility provisions.

Strategy C: Foster a customer-service orientation at the Department

a. Develop streamlined state performance report and align with the PBDMI.

b. Facilitate the use of the Customer Satisfaction Survey by program offices to expand the grantee

sample.

c. Develop a plan for translating Customer Satisfaction Survey results into improved customer

service.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 23

*Baseline NA = Not available NM = New measure for FY 2004; not a measure for FY 2003

PP = Percentage points M = Million AYP = Adequate Yearly Progress

Strategy D: Reduce data collection and reporting burden while increasing

the usefulness of data

a. Implement the long-term PBDMI to centralize and dramatically reduce reporting burden; align

data definitions and collections within the PBDMI.

b. Implement a short-term pilot project to collect school-level achievement data and align the

data with financial and demographic information.

c. Develop a streamlined consolidated application and report for ESEA formula programs and

align with PBDMI.

d. Revise the Office for Civil Rights’ Elementary and Secondary Survey to reduce data-collection

burden, improve data quality, and align with PBDMI.

Strategy E: Inform legislative proposals emphasizing flexibility

a. Encourage congressional consideration of embedding flexibility and local control in education

legislation.

Performance Measures for Objective 1.2

NA NA NA NA NM 3

Measures

Local

Flexibility

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA NA Set

baseline

Baseline

+

10 PP

Objective 1.2: Increase Flexibility and Local Control

NA NA NA NA NM Set

baseline

State

Flexibility

42.07M 40.93M 36.26M 38M 36M

NA NA NA 63* 65 67

Federal Data

Collection

Burden

Customer

Service

The number of states receiving

State-Flex authority (statutory

maximum of 7).

The percentage of school

districts utilizing Local-Flex,

Transferability or Rural

Flexibility.

The percentage of LEAs with

authority under State-Flex

that make AYP.

The OMB burden-hour

estimate of Department

program data collections

per year.

The percentage of Department

grantees that express

satisfaction with Department

customer service

(responsiveness, timeliness,

efficiency, etc.).

40.65M*
24 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Notes:

For FY 2004, one measure has been dropped from this objective and others have been added. Please see “Interim Adjustments

to the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

LOCAL FLEXIBILITY

Source: Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Program files.

Additional Information: The measures in this indicator are based on the provisions for the Rural Education Achievement

Program (REAP), Local Flexibility Demonstration Program (Local-Flex), and Local Transferability Provisions.

Although REAP was initially implemented in July 2001, its provisions were modified under the No Child Left Behind Act of

2001. Under No Child Left Behind, eligibility for REAP was expanded to include multiple formulas to encourage states and

local educational agencies to apply for REAP. Thus, in FY 2002, the REAP program operated for a single year under provisions

set forth in the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). Because FY 2002 REAP activity was based on IASA provisions, the

Department decided not to collect data until FY 2003.

The Local-Flex program and Transferability provisions were not in effect for FY 2002.

STATE FLEXIBILITY

Sources: Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Approved State-Flex plans, local report

cards, other records.

Additional Information: Under the State Flexibility Authority Program (State-Flex), SEAs must enter into local performance

agreements with four to ten LEAs.

FEDERAL DATA COLLECTION BURDEN

Source: Department of Education, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Program files.

CUSTOMER SERVICE

Source: Department of Education, Survey on Satisfaction of Chief State School Officers.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 25

Parents are their children’s first and most important teachers. The Department is aggressively

implementing the parental involvement, information, and options components of the No Child Left

Behind Act (NCLB) and encouraging states and communities to provide additional educational

choices for parents. States and districts are required to publish report cards that provide school

performance information to parents. Under NCLB, children attending low-performing or unsafe

schools now have the opportunity to attend better public schools (including charter schools) or use

federal funds for private tutoring. Public school options, including charter schools, are strongly

supported for all students, as are private school options for disadvantaged children. The

Department is also working with Congress to embed greater parental choice, involvement, and

information in all federal education programs, as well as within the tax code.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 1.3

Strategy A: Provide choices to children trapped in low-performing or unsafe

schools

a. Provide technical assistance to ensure implementation of ESEA Title I public school choice

provisions.

b. Provide technical assistance to ensure implementation of ESEA Title I supplemental services

provisions.

c. Create a public-private partnership as one way to provide technical assistance to the states on

implementing the ESEA Title I supplemental services requirements.

d. Develop and widely disseminate print and online publications that highlight innovative LEA

approaches to implementing NCLB public school choice requirements and supplemental

services requirements.

e. Promote the proposed education tax credit.

f. Encourage states and communities to provide additional choices to families through speeches

and publications.

Strategy B: Support charter and magnet schools

a. Provide technical assistance to states and schools on effective and innovative special education

approaches within charter schools.

b. Create additional charter school capacity through credit enhancement for charter school

facilities to target resources to communities with a high proportion of schools in need of

improvement under NCLB.

Objective 1.3 Increase information and

options for parents
26 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

c. Develop and widely disseminate in-print and online publications highlighting what all public

schools can learn from the best charter schools and how credit enhancement can support

charter schools’ acquisition of facilities in innovative ways.

d. Launch a comprehensive charter schools research agenda focused on charter schools’ impact on

student achievement.

e. Develop materials and conduct a series of workshops to provide charter schools with

information on applying for federal funds.

f. Convene the National Charter Schools Conference.

g. Draw media attention to National Charter Schools Week.

h. Publish a monthly newsletter about the Department’s charter school activities.

i. Develop and widely disseminate a publication that highlights successful magnet schools.

Strategy C: Expand choice in other federal programs

a. Work with Congress to gain funding for the Choice Incentive Fund program to support and

research high-quality public, charter, and private alternatives for children in schools in need of

improvement.

Strategy D: Provide information to parents about their educational options

a. Promote and develop a strategy and materials to improve communication and involvement of

parents of English language learners.

b. Provide information and technical assistance to the public and private schools to promote

equitable participation of private school students and teachers in federal education programs.

c. Explore the expansion of educational options for students using distance learning and

e-learning programs.

d. Publish four new titles in the “Helping Your Child” series and disseminate them widely to

parents, schools, and childcare providers.

e. Develop a national online clearinghouse of resources related to parental options in education,

including a parent-friendly database to identify the range of public and private schools and

supplemental educational services.

f. Through targeted outreach and marketing, partner with the Black Alliance for Educational

Options to increase the number of parents and children who take advantage of the NCLB choice

and supplemental services options in selected cities.

Strategy E: Require school report cards

a. Develop and issue guidance on school report cards; provide technical assistance to states to

ensure implementation.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 27

b. Develop and implement a coordinated campaign to publicize the report cards to parents,

businesses, and other users.

c. Publish and disseminate a guide for states and the public, highlighting the best school

performance information online, including state and private sites.

Strategy F: Inform legislative proposals emphasizing choice

a. Encourage congressional consideration of embedding options for parents in education

legislation.

Parents can choose to send their children to better public

schools or receive funding to pay for after-school tutoring or

other academic help. No parent will have to settle year after

year for schools that do not teach and will not change.

—Secretary Rod Paige
28 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Performance Measures for Objective 1.3

The percentage of students in

grades K–12 who are

attending a school (public or

private) that their parents

have chosen.

15* NA NA NA 19 20

Measures

Information

Parental

Choice

The percentage of parents who

report having the information

they need to determine the

effectiveness of their child’s

school.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA NA Set

baseline

Baseline

+

5 PP

Objective 1.3: Increase Information and Options for Parents

The number of children

attending charter schools.

252,000 478,000 546,000 997,000

Of eligible children, the

percentage using

supplemental educational

services under the provisions

of ESEA Title I.

NA NA NA NA Baseline

+

5 PP

575,000

Supplemental

Educational

Services

Set

baseline

828,000

* Baseline

NA = Not available

PP = Percentage points

ESEA = Elementary and Secondary Education Act

Notes:

PARENTAL CHOICE

Sources: Center for Education Reform, National Charter School Directory.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Surveys Program

(NHES).

Department of Education, State of Charter Schools 2000: Fourth-Year Report.

Department of Education, Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE).

Additional Information: Students included in this indicator attend either a private school or a public school outside their

regular attendance zone.

SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATIONAL SERVICES

Source: Department of Education, Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts (TASSIE).

Additional Information: Eligible children are low-income children who attend a school that is in “school improvement” status

under ESEA Title I. This provision went into effect September 2002 for the 2002-03 school year. This equates with the

Department’s 2003 fiscal year; therefore, 2003 data will be used as the baseline.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 29

Part of the cultural transformation needed in American education is the movement from

instructional fads to a focus on scientifically based methods and interventions, as well as on

rigorous research. This change is being addressed by Goal Four, which summarizes our key efforts

to develop sound educational research. The Department is working to embed the best research in

all our programs in order to ensure the use of methods that work and improve results for all

students. The Department is also providing policymakers, educators, parents, and others with ready

access to syntheses of research and objective information that allow more informed and effective

decisions, and we are encouraging the use of this knowledge. To facilitate access to high-quality

research, the Department is creating and regularly updating an online database of scientifically

rigorous research on what works in education and creating user-friendly syntheses of quality

research that include effective practices.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 1.4

Strategy A: Embed scientifically based research in all Department programs

a. Ensure that guidance and technical assistance for all programs reflect research-based

instruction.

b. Continue to conduct program reviews to ensure that rehabilitation research meets rigorous

standards for scientific and engineering methods and utilizes performance measurement to

increase the likelihood that anticipated outcomes are achieved.

c. Expand collaborative relationships with other federal agencies to improve the quality of

research in disability and rehabilitation and to build the National Institute on Disability and

Rehabilitative Research (NIDRR) capacity for scientifically based research.

Strategy B: Disseminate information on evidence-based education

a. Disseminate a guide explaining what evidence-based education is.

b. Increase the number of content topics in the What Works Clearinghouse.

Strategy C: Inform legislative proposals emphasizing scientifically based

research

a. Encourage congressional consideration of embedding scientifically based research in education

legislation.

Objective 1.4 Encourage the use of

scientifically based

methods within federal

education programs
30 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Measures

What Works

Clearinghouse

The number of hits on the

What Works Clearinghouse

Web site.

Performance Data

1999

NA

Targets

2000 2001 2002 2003

NA NA NA 1M 4M

2004

Objective 1.4: Encourage the Use of Scientifically Based Methods within Federal Education Programs

Performance Measures for Objective 1.4

NA = Not available (There was no Web site.)

M = Million

Notes:

For FY 2004, prior measures have been dropped from this objective, and a measure has been moved from Objective 4.2. Please

see “Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE

Source: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. What Works Clearinghouse Web site,

http://www.w-w-c.org/.

Additional Information: These targets have been modified from those that appear in the FY 2002–2007 Strategic Plan to

reflect that the Web site was launched in September 2002.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 31 Goal 2
32 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

2 STRATEGIC GOAL TWO:

Improve Student

Achievement

More and more, we are divided

into two nations.

 One that reads, one that doesn’t.

One that dreams, one that doesn’t.

—President George W. Bush
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 33

In education, the bottom line is student learning. As a result of the hard work of

students, educators, parents, and leaders at the state and local levels, American

students will dramatically improve their achievement in reading, mathematics,

and science, while receiving a rich, well-rounded education. The Department is

leading a national campaign to ensure that every child reads on grade level by

third grade. Preschool and elementary school teachers throughout the nation

are receiving training in the proven components of effective early reading

instruction. To ensure that students become proficient in mathematics and

science, the Department is establishing a broad collaboration among school

districts, colleges and universities, and research institutions to improve the

quality of instruction. The Department is also heading a campaign to improve

the rigor of the high school curriculum and to design new options for adolescent

students. Because student achievement depends on the effort of well-prepared

teachers and school leaders, the Department is establishing initiatives to ensure

that the supply of high-quality teachers and principals meets demand. Finally, to

emphasize the need to strengthen the international knowledge and skills of our

students, new Objective 2.5 has been added to this goal.

Approximately 50 percent of the Department’s FY 2004 budget request will

support Goal 2.

Objective 2.1

Ensure that all students read on grade level by the third grade.

Objective 2.2

Improve mathematics and science achievement for all students.

Objective 2.3

Improve the performance of all high school students.

Objective 2.4

Improve teacher and principal quality.

Objective 2.5

Improve U.S. students’ knowledge of world languages, regions, and

international issues and build international ties in the field of education.

2
34 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 2.1 Ensure that all students

read on grade level by the

third grade

President Bush and Congress set a goal through the No Child Left Behind Act that all children will

read on grade level by third grade. To reach this goal, we must ensure that reading instruction is

based on solid scientific research. A strong understanding of the five essential components of good

reading instruction and the importance of early cognitive development is also essential. We are

working to boost reading achievement for all students, including minority and low-income

children, English language learners, and children with disabilities.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 2.1

Strategy A: Promote early cognitive development

a. Through the Education/Health and Human Services Early Childhood Task Force, develop and

disseminate publications for parents and teachers on early childhood cognitive development.

b. Fund a new Center on Early Childhood Outcomes and Indicators, which will conduct an annual

survey of states’ efforts to identify child outcomes, performance indicators, and assessment

methodologies to measure the progress of children from birth through age five who are served

under IDEA.

c. Establish the Good Start, Grow Smart—Excellence in Early Childhood Awards program to

recognize preschool centers of excellence that enhance the cognitive development of threeand four-year-olds to prepare them to enter kindergarten.

Strategy B: Publicize rigorous research on reading instruction

a. Continue to use a nationally recognized Reading First Expert Review Panel to review state

applications and determine whether they meet all 25 rigorous review standards.

b. Provide information and technical assistance to state Migrant Education directors about

research-based reading instruction.

c. Provide states with technical assistance and monitoring to ensure that Reading First plans are

implemented as approved and in line with scientifically based reading research.

d. In coordination with the National Institute for Literacy, (1) create and disseminate products for

teachers and parents that explain scientifically based reading research and its relevance to

classroom instruction and home learning activities, and (2) disseminate reading research

findings about the acquisition of reading skills to educators and school administrators and

expand general knowledge about reading and scientifically based instruction.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 35

Strategy C: Encourage early identification and intervention of reading

difficulties

a. Emphasize the importance of implementing a high-quality research-based reading program in

the Office for Civil Rights’ minority and special education initiatives and complaint resolutions.

Strategy D: Ensure that English language learners (ELLs) meet rigorous

standards

a. Provide information and technical assistance to state ESEA Title III directors about researchbased reading instruction for ELLs.

b. Work proactively through the Office for Civil Rights to help districts develop good evaluation

plans to ensure that language acquisition programs are research-based and that ELLs are

meeting performance standards.

c. Conduct proactive outreach and technical assistance through the Office for Civil Rights

specifically designed to encourage the parents of ELLs to actively participate in their children’s

education.

d. Provide technical assistance to tribes, schools, and tribal colleges serving Native American

students to ensure that their program plans include activities to assess and report on the English

language achievement of students.
36 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Performance Measures for Objective 2.1

NA = Not available

Note:

STATE READING ASSESSMENTS

Additional Information: Using the 2001–02 school year as a baseline, each state is required to set the same annual

achievement target for all students and for several student subgroups, starting with the 2002–03 school year. (This equates to

the Department’s 2003 fiscal year, which is the first year this indicator can be measured.)

When a state does not test students in the third grade, results from fourth- or fifth-grade assessments will be used instead.

State targets increase each year; therefore, maintaining a target of 45 states will present an increasing challenge.

Low-Income Students. The

number of states meeting their

targets for third-grade reading

achievement for low-income

students.

NA NA NA NA 45 45

Measures

All Students. The number of

states meeting their targets for

third-grade reading

achievement for all students.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA NA 45 45

Objective 2.1: Ensure That All Students Read on Grade Level by the Third Grade

African American Students.

The number of states meeting

their targets for third-grade

reading achievement for

African American students.

NA NA NA NA 45 45

Hispanic Students. The number

of states meeting their targets

for third-grade reading

achievement for Hispanic

students.

NA NA NA NA 45 45

Students with Disabilities. The

number of states meeting their

targets for third-grade reading

achievement for students with

disabilities.

NA NA NA 45 45

State Reading

Assessments

English Language Learners.

The number of states meeting

their targets for third-grade

reading achievement for

English language learners.

NA NA NA NA 45 45

NA
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 37

Objective 2.2 Improve mathematics and

science achievement for all

students

The U.S. Commission on National Security/21st Century confirmed that America’s future depends

on improvements in student achievement in mathematics and science. For this situation to

improve, three goals must be met: (1) the public must understand and champion the need for

rigorous mathematics and science coursework for all students, (2) teachers must be well prepared in

their content areas as well as in pedagogy, and (3) research into how children learn mathematics

and science must be available to practitioners in ways that inform them about effective practice.

Every student deserves to have teachers who possess strong content knowledge in their areas of

teaching, as well as effective strategies to engage all students. Mathematics and science teachers

must have opportunities to remain current in their fields and to take advantage of new technologies

to make their subject areas meaningful and engaging for their students. In addition, teachers and

administrators need clear research findings to inform their instruction and influence their selection

and implementation of programs, materials, and instruction.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 2.2

Strategy A: Support high-quality professional development

a. Provide technical assistance and guidance on high-quality professional development through

the Mathematics and Science Partnership program in collaboration with the National Science

Foundation.

b. Provide technical assistance and guidance on high-quality professional development in

mathematics and science through the ESEA Title II program.

c. Provide technical assistance to state education technology directors to ensure that technology

is used to support student achievement and accountability.

Strategy B: Use data to inform instruction

a. Support organizations that provide training to states and districts in using data to inform

instruction.

b. Convene state officials to highlight effective data management systems that can be used to

improve instruction.

c. Acquire data that enable us to compare the performance of U.S. students with that of their

international peers and help us to understand strategies that produce high performers.

d. Provide technical assistance to Mathematics and Science Partnership Program grantees to help

them use student assessment data to inform instruction.
38 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Strategy C: Develop mathematics and science partnerships

a. Collaborate with the National Science Foundation to support high-quality professional

development.

b. Provide guidance and assistance for state implementation of competitive mathematics and

science partnership grants.

c. Partner with community-based, educational, and national children- and youth-serving business

and scientific organizations to support effective mathematics and science instruction.

d. Create a public engagement campaign to establish high expectations for student course-taking

and achievement in mathematics and science education.

Strategy D: Strengthen the research on mathematics and science instruction

a. Continue research programs on effective mathematics education, with a second round of IES

grants to be awarded by June 2004.

b. Collaborate with the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health to

strengthen the research base on mathematics and science instruction.

In an uncertain world, it is paramount that

America graduate greater numbers of young people

who are strong in mathematics and science. Our

future depends on them to lead the way in

developing strategies and technologies that will

keep us safe and prosperous for generations to

come.

—Secretary Rod Paige
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 39

Performance Measures for Objective 2.2

NA = Not available

Note:

STATE MATHEMATICS ASSESSMENTS

Additional Information: Using the 2001–02 school year as a baseline, each state is required to set the same annual

achievement target for all students and for several student subgroups, starting with the 2002–03 school year. (This equates to

the Department’s 2003 fiscal year, which is the first year this indicator can be measured.) When a state does not test students

in the eighth grade, results from sixth- or seventh-grade assessments will be used instead.

State targets increase each year; therefore, maintaining a target of 45 states will present an increasing challenge.

English Language Learners.

The number of states meeting

their targets for eighth-grade

mathematics achievement for

English language learners.

NA NA NA NA 45 45

NA NA NA NA 45 45

Measures

All Students. The number of

states meeting their targets for

eighth-grade mathematics

achievement for all students.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA NA 45 45

Objective 2.2: Improve Mathematics and Science Achievement for All Students

Low-Income Students. The

number of states meeting their

targets for eighth-grade

mathematics achievement for

low-income students.

African American Students.

The number of states meeting

their targets for eighth-grade

mathematics achievement for

African American students.

NA NA NA NA 45 45

State

Mathematics

Assessments Hispanic Students. The number NA NA NA NA 45 45

of states meeting their targets

for eighth-grade mathematics

achievement for Hispanic

students.

Students with Disabilities. The NA NA NA NA 45 45

number of states meeting

their targets for eighth-grade

mathematics achievement for

students with disabilities.
40 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 2.3 Improve the performance

of all high school students

The demands of a competitive economy and a flexible workplace require every American youth to

obtain solid academic preparation for an effective transition from high school to postsecondary

education and to the workplace. Today’s youth need strong academic skills in written and oral

communication, mathematics and science, problem solving, and teamwork. Yet the National

Assessment of Educational Progress shows 12th-grade achievement declining at the same time that

the national dropout rate is increasing. American high schools must be held accountable for raising

the academic achievement of all students. Our education system should also offer customized

learning opportunities to adolescents, tapping into community colleges, education technology, and

other nontraditional sources to boost learning and career preparation for students.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 2.3

Strategy A: Hold schools accountable for student achievement

a. By developing and expanding the State Scholars Initiative to include 21 states by 2005, create a

culture of academic achievement supported by business-education partnerships that encourage

all students to complete more academic courses beyond the minimum requirements for high

school graduation.

b. Implement the Secondary Student Initiative for Migrant Children.

c. Work with interested states and private organizations to investigate ways to link high school

graduation exams with postsecondary entrance requirements.

Strategy B: Encourage states and local school districts to improve the rigor

of the high school curriculum

a. Promote expansion of Advanced Placement (AP) programs nationally, particularly in high

schools with concentrations of low-income children, through better targeting of AP incentive

funds and increased program outreach.

Strategy C: Strengthen research and development efforts focused on high

schools

a. Through partnerships with other federal programs, as appropriate, promote the development of

intervention strategies and methods to address the high incidence of learning disabilities and

illiteracy among adolescents attending high schools.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 41

Strategy D: Increase learning options for students

a. Support a new center to improve literacy results for secondary-school-aged children who are

unresponsive to effective classroom or schoolwide programs.

b. Connect local school districts, higher education institutions, and faith-based and community

organizations to family literacy programs and help these groups to become results oriented in

addressing the needs of ELL populations.

c. As required by NCLB, issue guidelines through the Office for Civil Rights for local educational

agencies seeking funding for programs to provide same-gender schools and classrooms.

d. Collaborate with National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) on

adolescent literacy study.

e. Provide information on effective strategies for older struggling readers.
42 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

NA = Not available

Note:

STATE READING ASSESSMENTS

Additional Information: Using the 2001–02 school year as a baseline, each state is required to set the same annual

achievement target for all students and for several student subgroups, starting with the 2002–03 school year. (This equates to

the Department’s 2003 fiscal year, which is the first year this indicator can be measured.)

State targets increase each year; therefore, maintaining a target of 45 states will present an increasing challenge.

Low-Income Students. The

number of states meeting their

targets for high school reading

achievement for low-income

students.

NA NA NA NA 45 45

Measures

All Students. The number of

states meeting their targets for

high school reading

achievement for all students.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA NA 45 45

Objective 2.3: Improve the Performance of All High School Students

English Language Learners.

The number of states meeting

their targets for high school

reading achievement for

English language learners.

NA NA NA NA 45 45

African American Students.

The number of states meeting

their targets for high school

reading achievement for

African American students.

NA NA NA NA 45 45

State Reading

Assessments

Hispanic Students. The number NA NA NA NA 45 45

of states meeting their targets

for high school reading

achievement for Hispanic

students.

Students with Disabilities. The NA NA NA NA 45 45

number of states meeting

their targets for high school

reading achievement for

students with disabilities.

Performance Measures for Objective 2.3
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 43

NA = Not available

Note:

STATE MATHEMATICS ASSESSMENTS

Additional Information: Using the 2001—02 school year as a baseline, states are required to set the same annual achievement

target for all students and for several student subgroups, starting with the 2002–03 school year. (This equates to the

Department’s 2003 fiscal year, which is the first year this indicator can be measured.) States may assess mathematics

achievement in grade 10, 11, or 12.

State targets increase each year; therefore, maintaining a target of 45 states will present an increasing challenge.

Low-Income Students. The

number of states meeting their

targets for high school

mathematics achievement for

low-income students.

NA NA NA NA 45 45

Measures

All Students. The number of

states meeting their targets for

high school mathematics

achievement for all students.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA NA 45 45

Objective 2.3: Improve the Performance of All High School Students (continued)

African American Students.

The number of states meeting

their targets for high school

mathematics achievement for

African American students.

NA NA NA 45 45

Hispanic Students. The number

of states meeting their targets

for high school mathematics

achievement for Hispanic

students.

NA NA NA NA 45 45

NA NA NA 45 45

State

Mathematics

Assessments

NA NA NA NA 45 45

Students with Disabilities. The NA

number of states meeting their

targets for high school

mathematics achievement for

students with disabilities.

English Language Learners.

The number of states meeting

their targets for high school

mathematics achievement for

English language learners.

NA
44 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

* Baseline

P = Pending

Measures

All Students. The percentage of all

12th-grade students who took at

least one of the AP exams.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

11.7 12.4 13.2 14.2 15 16

Objective 2.3: Improve the Performance of All High School Students (continued)

Advanced

Placement

Participation

African American Students. The

percentage of all 12th-grade African

American students who took at least

one of the AP exams.

3.4 3.9 4.1 4.5 5 7

English. The percentage of all 12thgrade students who scored 3 or higher

on at least one of the AP English

exams.

4.2 4.5 4.4 4.8 5.9 6.4

History. The percentage of all 12thgrade students who scored 3 or higher

on the AP American history exam.

0.20 0.27 0.25 0.29 0.40 0.45

Calculus. The percentage of all 12thgrade students who scored 3 or higher

on at least one of the AP calculus

exams.

2.8 2.9 3.1 3.4 4.4 4.9

Science. The percentage of all 12thgrade students who scored 3 or higher

on at least one of the AP science

exams.

2.1 2.3 2.3 2.6 3.6 4.1

Total. The percentage of 18-24 yearolds who have completed high school.85.9* 86.5 P P 86.5 87.5

Advanced

Placement

Achievement

Hispanic Students. The percentage of

all 12th-grade Hispanic students who

took at least one of the AP exams.

6.4 7.4 8.1 8.9 10

83.5* 83.7 P P 84.5 85.5

Hispanic Americans. The percentage

of 18-24 year-old Hispanic Americans

who have completed high school.

63.4* 64.1 P P 66.0 69.0

African Americans. The percentage of

18-24 year-old African Americans

who have completed high school.

High School

Completion

12
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 45

Notes:

For FY 2004, targets have been changed for one measure. Please see “Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan,”

beginning on page 107.

ADVANCED PLACEMENT PARTICIPATION

Sources: The College Board, Advanced Placement Program.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2001.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey: 1999-2000.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Projections of Education Statistics to 2012.

Additional Information: These targets demonstrate a narrowing of the AP participation rate gaps (between all individuals and

African Americans/Hispanic Americans) by half. The denominator is the universe of all 12th-grade students in the United

States.

ADVANCEMENT PLACEMENT ACHIEVEMENT

Sources: The College Board, Advanced Placement Program.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics, 2001.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey: 1999–2000.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Projections of Education Statistics to 2012.

Additional Information: English exams include AP English Literature and Composition and AP English Language and

Composition. Calculus exams include AP Calculus AB and AP Calculus BC. Science exams include AP Biology, AP Chemistry,

AP Environmental Science, AP Physics B, AP Physics C (Electricity and Magnetism), and AP Physics C (Mechanics). The

denominator is the universe of all 12th-grade students in the United States.

HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION

Source: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Current Population Survey.

Additional Information: Because of small sample sizes, American Indian/Alaskan Natives and Asian/Pacific Islanders are

included in the total, but separate targets are not set for these groups.

These targets demonstrate a narrowing of the high school completion gaps (between all individuals and African Americans/

Hispanic Americans) by half.
46 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 2.4 Improve teacher and

principal quality

President Bush has called for a “quality teacher” in every classroom. He has said, “Education

reform is empty if it does not take account of the needs of educators. Teachers are not the objects

of education reform. They are the engines of education reform. They have a high calling, and we

must respect it.” Because of the vital role that teachers play in the lives of our children, the No

Child Left Behind Act requires that all teachers of core academic subjects be highly qualified by the

end of the 2005–06 school year. We are working hard to meet this goal, by supporting states in

their efforts to recruit new, highly qualified teachers and to provide current teachers with access to

rigorous professional development. This is especially important in schools where many children

have been left behind. In addition, we are working to strengthen the leadership corps because we

know from research and experience that strong principals are essential for improving student

achievement.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 2.4

Strategy A: Reduce barriers to teaching for highly qualified individuals

a. Complete guidance on ESEA Title II and provide technical assistance to the states, especially on

how they can use their funds to streamline their certification systems and support alternate

routes to certification.

b. Work with teacher recruitment grantees, and partnership grantees under Title II of the Higher

Education Act (HEA) to increase alternate routes to certification and streamline teacher

preparation programs and base them on research.

c. With a combination of Department and private funds, create a national center to provide

technical assistance to alternative certification programs.

d. Convene the first national meeting on alternate routes to teacher certification to encourage

Department grantees and other organizations to share information and promising practices.

e. Actively promote the Department’s loan-forgiveness program for teachers in high-poverty

schools.

f. Drawing on the Troops-to-Teachers and Transition to Teaching programs, develop and widely

disseminate a publication (in print and online) that highlights innovative methods of recruiting

and training nontraditional teachers through alternate routes into the profession.

g. Develop and implement a plan for recruiting international teachers to increase the number of

qualified teachers prepared to teach in dual-language programs.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 47

Strategy B: Improve the quality of teacher preparation programs

a. Support statewide models of personnel preparation to ensure that highly qualified teachers

serve children with disabilities and to disseminate their best practices nationally.

b. Promote induction and mentoring programs for new teachers to ensure high quality and

content expertise through speeches, conferences, and publications.

c. Collaborate with colleges of education on specific projects to train their faculty on researchbased practices, particularly research-based reading instruction, and to help identify ways to

ensure that their graduates have strong content knowledge in the subjects they teach.

Strategy C: Support professional development in research-based instruction

a. Provide technical assistance to the states, through Title II of ESEA, in research-based

professional development, as well as professional development using technology to improve

instruction.

b. Under IDEA, award grants for professional development projects of national significance that

use research-based practices.

c. To improve teacher and administrator quality in adult education programs, offer institutes,

models, and other forms of technical assistance that enable state and local providers to put the

findings of research into practice.

d. Host a professional development institute for adult education, incorporating current knowledge

and findings of Adult Basic Education (ABE) and English as a Second Language (ESL) studies.

e. Conduct regional institutes for states to revise their professional development plans for

technical education teachers to include research-based practices, especially in mathematics and

science.

f. Provide technical assistance to states, schools, and institutions of higher education (IHEs) to

ensure that they are providing research-based professional development for teachers of ELLs.

Strategy D: Strengthen the research base

a. Use ESEA Title II evaluation funds to support rigorous studies of effective interventions related

to professional development and teacher quality.

Strategy E: Develop new leadership training models

a. Host an Educational Leadership Summit to examine effective recruitment, development, and

retention of high-quality school leaders.

b. Develop and widely disseminate a publication (in print and online) that highlights innovative

alternative routes to school leadership for nontraditional candidates.

c. Provide technical assistance to the states through ESEA Title II in developing high-quality

recruitment and professional development models for school leaders.
48 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Measures

Highly

Qualified

Teachers

Percentage of the nation’s

teachers of core academic

subjects that are highly

qualified as defined by NCLB.

Performance Data

1999

NA

Objective 2.4: Improve Teacher and Principal Quality

Targets

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA NM Set

baseline

Performance Measure for Objective 2.4

NA = Not available

NM = New measure for FY 2004; not a measure for FY 2003

Notes:

For FY 2004, a new measure has been added. Please see “Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning

on page 107.

HIGH-QUALITY TEACHERS

Additional Information: The definition of highly qualified teacher from Section 9302 of the ESEA will be used. This is a new

indicator beginning in FY 2004.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 49

Objective 2.5 Improve U.S. students’

knowledge of world

languages, regions, and

international issues and

build international ties in

the field of education

For the United States to ensure its national security and international leadership position and to

continue to compete successfully in a global economy, our young people need to understand the

increasingly complex and interconnected world in which we live. Yet, according to recent studies,

vast numbers of U.S. citizens—particularly young Americans—know little about international

matters. Secretary Paige has directed the Department to strengthen and expand its international

ties and to do a better job of exposing our students to other languages, cultures, and challenges

outside our borders. This new objective encourages our work with partners in this country and

abroad to strengthen the international knowledge and skills of our students.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 2.5

Strategy A: Strengthen K–12 programs on world languages, regions, and

international issues

a. Encourage the teaching of second languages in the early grades through speeches, publications,

and collaboration with states, districts, and non-governmental organizations in order to expand

the number of individuals proficient in languages other than English.

b. Support partnerships of postsecondary and K–12 educational institutions to promote learning

about other world regions, languages, international issues, and the role of the United States in

the world, through HEA reauthorization and other means.

c. Participate as an active partner in the National Coalition on Asia and International Studies in the

Schools and engage in ongoing dialogue and cooperation with states, districts, and other

partners.

Strategy B: Highlight the importance of international education among the

general public and education policymakers at all levels

a. Establish and administer the Secretary’s Excellence in Teaching International Studies Award to

recognize annually educators who excel in teaching international skills to their students.

b. Coordinate and promote International Education Week events and activities in cooperation with

the Department of State.
50 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

c. Work with the Department of State and others to ensure that the United States reenters the

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) in a manner that

promotes the national interest and reflects the input of the U.S. education sector.

Performance Measures for Objective 2.5

NA = Not available

NM = New measure for FY 2004; not a measure for FY 2003

Notes:

For FY 2004, new measures have been added for this new objective. Please see “Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007

Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE ENROLLMENT

Sources: American Council on the Teaching of Foreign Language (ACTFL), Foreign Language in U.S. Public High Schools

Survey.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2001 Digest of Education Statistics, Table 57.

STUDY ABROAD

Source: Institute of International Education, Open Doors Survey. www.opendoorsweb.org.

Measures

Foreign

Language

Enrollment

Percentage of

public

secondary

school (grades

9–12) students

enrolled in

foreignlanguage

courses.

Performance Data

1999

NA

Objective 2.5: Improve U.S. Students’ Knowledge of World Languages, Regions, and International

Issues and Build International Ties in the Field of Education

Targets

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA NM 43.0

1990 1994

37.5 41.0

Number of U.S.

postsecondary

students

studying

abroad.

NA 143,590 154,168 NA NM 164,000

Study

Abroad

NA NA
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 51 Goal 3
52 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

3 STRATEGIC GOAL THREE:

Develop Safe Schools

and Strong Character

Character not only strengthens the

individual, it strengthens America.

—First Lady Laura Bush
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 53

3

The war on terrorism has created a new environment in which we must ensure

that our children are safe from threats, both foreign and domestic. The

Department is working to maintain a safe and drug-free environment in which

every child can learn. In addition, as the President has said, “Teaching is more

than training, and learning is more than literacy. Our children must be educated

in reading and writing—but also in right and wrong.” He quoted Martin Luther

King Jr., who said, “Intelligence plus character—that is the true goal of

education.” We are focusing the nation’s education system on our children’s

hearts, as well as their minds.

Approximately 1 percent of the Department’s FY 2004 budget request will

support Goal 3.

Objective 3.1

Ensure that our nation’s schools are safe and drug free and that students are free

of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs.

Objective 3.2

Promote strong character and citizenship among our nation’s youth.
54 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 3.1 Ensure that our nation’s

schools are safe and drug

free and that students are

free of alcohol, tobacco,

and other drugs

Teaching and learning to the high standards demanded in the No Child Left Behind Act require that

our nation’s schools be safe and that our students abstain from the use of alcohol, tobacco, and

other drugs. To ensure that our schools are safe and our students are drug free, activities supported

by the Department of Education will focus on four areas: using best practices; collecting and

disseminating data, coordinating efforts, and effectively addressing safe school priorities.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 3.1

Strategy A: Focus on results and progress

a. Develop nonregulatory guidance on implementation of the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and

Community Act (SDFSCA) State Grants program to emphasize provisions about scientifically

based research and expanded data collection requirements.

b. Develop and publish an annual report on school safety.

c. Hold a conference of SDFSCA grantees and others working on safe-school issues to promote

the adoption of effective strategies for creating safe and drug-free schools and preparing for

crises.

d. Award grants to help local educational agencies (LEAs) adopt and implement drug-testing

programs for students that are based on best practices.

e. Award grants to support implementation of research-based practices to prevent high-risk

drinking and violent behavior among college students.

Strategy B: Disseminate information on best practices

a. Disseminate information regarding best drug-testing practices to school districts.

b. Ensure that all principal offices that provide technical assistance to school districts and

postsecondary education institutions on issues of harassment include Department-identified

best practices.

c. Provide information and support to personnel, parents, and students in crisis response;

coordinate with local emergency responders, including fire and police; purchase equipment;

and coordinate with groups and organizations responsible for recovery issues, such as health

and mental-health agencies.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 55

d. Hold training sessions for school security chiefs at the nation’s largest school districts and

provide them with information on best practices for dealing with threats and with bioterrorism

attacks.

e. In partnership with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, disseminate the Bomb Threat

Manual to every school district in the country.

Strategy C: Develop and revise school safety plans to reflect new threats

a. Develop and announce model safe school plans grant program.

b. Develop model school crisis plan to serve as models for school districts.

Performance Measures for Objective 3.1

* Baseline

† See “Targets” section on the following page.

P = Pending

Notes:

For FY 2004, some measures have been dropped, others revised and some targets have been changed. Please see “Interim

Adjustments to the 2002-2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

The rate of serious violent

crimes experienced at school

by students ages 12–18.

7/1000* 5/1000 P P 4/1000 4/1000

Measures

Violent Crime

at School

The rate of violent crimes

experienced at school by

students ages 12–18.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

26/1000 P P 24/1000 23/1000

Objective 3.1: Ensure That Our Nation’s Schools Are Safe and Drug Free and

That Students Are Free of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drugs

Alcohol. The percentage of

youth ages 12–17 who

reported using alcohol in the

past 30 days.

16.5 16.4* 17.3 P † 14

Tobacco (cigarettes). The

percentage of youth ages 12–

17 who reported smoking a

cigarette in the past 30 days.

14.9 13.4* 13.0 P † 11

Marijuana. The percentage of

youth ages 12–17 who

reported using marijuana in

the past 30 days.

7.2 7.2* 8.0 P 7 7

Drug Use

33/1000*
56 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

VIOLENT CRIME AT SCHOOL

Sources: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Crime Victimization Survey, 1999.

U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 2002.

Additional Information: “Serious violent crime” includes rape, sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. “Violent

crime” includes serious violent crime and simple assault. “Serious violent crime” is a subset of “violent crime.” These data are

collected annually and are analyzed and released two years after collection.

DRUG USE

Sources: The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, The National Household Survey on Drug Abuse

(through 2000).

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, The National Survey on Drug Use and Health

(beginning 2001).

Targets: The FY 2003 target for the use of alcohol is 12.2 percent, as previously set in the 2002–2003 Annual Plan. The

FY 2004 target reflects a change from the Strategic Plan based on trend data that showed that previous targets were

unrealistic.

The FY 2003 target for the use of tobacco is 10.3 percent, as previously set in the 2002–2003 Annual Plan. The

FY 2004 target reflects a change from the Strategic Plan based on trend data that showed that previous targets were

unrealistic.

Additional Information: National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) data are validated by the Substance Abuse and

Mental Health Services Administration. Data are updated annually. The NHSDA interviews approximately 70,000 people 12

years old or older, in every state, over a 12-month period. Because of the size of the sample, it is possible to make relatively

precise estimates of many variables of major interest.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 57

Objective 3.2 Promote strong character

and citizenship among our

nation’s youth

The Department is building on our nation’s rekindled spirit of community and patriotism to launch

a national campaign to promote character development and citizenship in our youth. We are also

highlighting programs and schools that have demonstrated evidence of improved student safety

and the development of character in their students.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 3.2

Strategy A: Support and evaluate comprehensive character education

strategies

a. Fund projects that support school implementation of comprehensive character education and

include rigorous evaluations.

b. Provide technical assistance to current Partnerships in Character Education grantees and other

entities on issues including evaluation, training, and collaborative strategies.

Strategy B: Partner with faith-based and community organizations

a. Issue regulations through the Office for Civil Rights implementing the Boy Scouts of America

Equal Access Act to provide equal access for Boy Scouts and other patriotic organizations.

b. Encourage Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to strengthen existing work

with faith-based and community organizations to promote strong character and safe schools.

Strategy C: Promote awareness of character education

a. Disseminate new character education booklet in the “Helping Your Child” series to parents and

childcare providers.

b. Develop and disseminate materials to promote and support character education.

c. Highlight character education strategies at the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools (OSDFS)

fall conference.

Strategy D: Promote the teaching of citizenship education

a. Award grants to support adult and student interaction in citizenship activities.

b. Award grants to assist teachers in developing countries to create programs for their students

that emphasize democratic principles and citizen participation.
58 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Percentage of students in

grade 12 who think that most

students in their classes would

dislike it if a student cheated

on a test.

14.8 12.2 13.5 17 19

Percentage of students in

grade 12 who would dislike it

if a student intentionally did

things to make his/her

teachers angry.

33.6 32.1 30.6 P 34 36

Measures

Community

Service

Respect for

Teachers

Percentage of students in

grade 12 who participate in

community service or

volunteer work.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

75.3 75.2 77.4 P 81 83

Objective 3.2: Promote Strong Character and Citizenship Among Our Nation’s Youth

Percentage of 14- to 18-yearolds who believe cheating

occurs by half or most

students.

43 41* NA NA 39 38

P

Cheating

Performance Measures for Objective 3.2

* Baseline

NA = Not available

Notes:

For FY 2004, some measures have been revised, others have been added and some targets have been changed. Please see

“Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

COMMUNITY SERVICE

Source: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center. Monitoring the Future.

RESPECT FOR TEACHERS

Source: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center. Monitoring the Future.

CHEATING

Source: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center. Monitoring the Future.

Horatio Alger Association. State of Our Nation’s Youth Survey.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 59 Goal 4
60 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

4

Transform Education into an

Evidence-Based Field

STRATEGIC GOAL FOUR:

If teachers, schools, and states are going to be held

accountable for raising student achievement, they

need tools that will allow them to identify and utilize

effective practices and programs.

—Director Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst

 Institute of Education Sciences
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 61

4

Unlike medicine, agriculture, and industrial production, the field of education

currently operates largely on the basis of ideology and professional consensus.

As such, education can be subject to fads, and its practices may not benefit from

the cumulative progress that follows from the application of the scientific

method and from the systematic collection and use of objective information in

policymaking. We are driving the focus of education toward an evidence-based

enterprise, by dramatically improving the quality and relevance of research

funded or conducted by the Department. We are also encouraging the use of

this knowledge (particularly within federal education programs, as explained in

Objective 1.4).

Approximately 1 percent of the Department’s FY 2004 budget request will

support Goal 4.

Objective 4.1

Raise the quality of research funded or conducted by the Department.

Objective 4.2

Increase the relevance of our research to meet the needs of our customers.
62 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 4.1 Raise the quality of

research funded or

conducted by the

Department

The Department is a primary source of funding for educational research. Thus, we have an

opportunity and an obligation to ensure that the research funded, conducted, or published by the

Department is of the highest quality. We are developing and enforcing rigorous standards,

overhauling the peer-review process, and focusing the Department’s research activities on topics of

greatest relevance to educational practitioners.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 4.1

Strategy A: Develop and utilize rigorous standards

a. Initiate fellowship programs at universities to improve the preparation of education researchers

by using well-designed training programs and by attracting scientists and scholars from various

relevant disciplines into education research.

b. Continue to ensure that research initiatives meet high standards by preparing program

announcements that specify in detail the standards that must be met in research design and

methods.

Strategy B: Improve peer review of research proposals

a. Select highly qualified reviewers for all review panels to ensure rigorous high-quality

evaluations.

The current nationwide emphasis on ensuring that all students

and schools achieve at high levels has increased the demand

for sound evidence regarding “what works” in education.

—Director Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst

 Institute of Education Sciences
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 63

Performance Measures for Objective 4.1

* Baseline

† See “Targets” below.

IES = Institute for Education Sciences

OSEP = Office of Special Education Programs

NA = Not available

Notes:

QUALITY AS JUDGED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Source: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (IES).

Targets: As previously set in the 2002–2003 Annual Plan, the FY 2003 target for the percentage of publications that are

deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of qualified scientists is 50%, which was determined by

adding 50 percentage points to the 2001 baseline. The actual 2002 data significantly exceeded that target.

Measures

Quality as

Judged by

Independent

Review

Projects. The percentage of

new IES and OSEP research

and evaluation projects funded

by the Department that are

deemed to be of high quality

by an independent review

panel of qualified scientists.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA 40* 53 90 95

Objective 4.1: Raise the Quality of Research Funded or Conducted by the Department

Publications. The percentage of

new IES and OSEP research

and evaluation publications

that are deemed to be of high

quality by an independent

review panel of qualified

scientists.

NA NA 0* 100 † 95

Projects. Of new IES and OSEP

research and evaluation

projects that address causal

questions, the percentage that

employ randomized

experimental designs.

NA NA 46* † 75

Use of

Randomized

Experimental

Designs

78

Publications. Of IES and OSEP

new research and evaluation

publications that address

causal questions, the

percentage that describe

studies that employ

randomized experimental

designs.

NA NA 0* 100 † 75
64 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Additional Information: These measures include all research and evaluation studies initiated by the Institute of Education

Sciences (IES) and the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). The independent review panel referred to here is different

from the peer-review panels that oversee the selection of projects. This panel will be convened at the close of the fiscal year

and will review projects and publications after the fact as a way to judge the effectiveness of the Department’s quality control

mechanisms.

USE OF RANDOMIZED EXPERIMENTAL DESIGNS

Source: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (IES).

Targets: As previously set in the 2002–2003 Annual Plan, the FY 2003 target for the percentage of projects that employ

randomized experimental designs is 71 percent, which was determined by adding 25 percentage points to the 2001

baseline. The actual 2002 data significantly exceeded that target.

As previously set in the 2002–2003 Annual Plan, the FY 2003 target for the percentage of publications that describe

studies that employ randomized experimental designs is 25 percent, which was determined by adding 25 percentage

points to the 2001 baseline. The actual 2002 data significantly exceeded that target.

Additional Information: These measures include all research and evaluation studies that address causal questions. IES

researchers evaluate all newly funded research proposals. Evaluators are external experts qualified in research and content

areas. An inter-rater reliability check is done in which two researchers independently evaluate a subset of proposals and

products to ensure the validity and reliability of data. An agreement factor of 96 percent minimizes threats to the validity and

reliability of data.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 65

Objective 4.2 Increase the relevance of

our research in order to

meet the needs of our

customers

The Department is gathering information to more clearly understand the needs of our primary

customers—federal, state, and local policymakers; educators; parents; and individuals with

disabilities—to ensure that our research is relevant to their needs. The Department is making a

commitment to the public that high-quality research—whether or not it is funded by the

Department—will be synthesized, publicized, and disseminated widely (see Objective 1.4).

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 4.2

Strategy A: Increase focus and allocate resources in response to needs

a. Initiate research on effective mathematics education, teacher quality, and social and character

development.

b. Continue support for existing research on preschool curriculum evaluation, reading

comprehension and cognition, and student learning.

c. Conduct research and evaluation studies to address questions of impact and effectiveness with

regard to ELL issues.

Strategy B: Obtain input from stakeholders

a. Obtain input from research experts and practitioners on the design and conduct of research and

evaluation studies.
66 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Performance Measures for Objective 4.2

* Baseline

NA = Not available

Notes:

For FY 2004, one measure has been dropped from this objective and one moved to Objective 1.4. Some targets have been

changed. Please see “Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107

RELEVANCE AS JUDGED BY INDEPENDENT REVIEW

Source: Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences (IES).

Additional Information: The independent review panel referred to here is different from the peer-review panels that oversee the

selection of projects. This panel will be convened at the close of the fiscal year and will review projects and publications after

the fact as a way to judge the effectiveness of the Department’s quality control mechanisms.

Measures

Relevance as

Judged by

Independent

Review

The percentage of new

research projects funded by the

Department that are deemed

to be of high relevance to

educational practice as

determined by an independent

review panel of qualified

practitioners.

Performance Data

1999

NA

Objective 4.2: Increase the Relevance of Our Research in Order to Meet the Needs of Our Customers

Targets

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA 24* 53 54 75
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 67 Goal 5
68 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

5 STRATEGIC GOAL FIVE:

Enhance the Quality of and

Access to Postsecondary and

Adult Education

To ensure that all our citizens have the knowledge

and skills necessary to meet national goals and to

ensure individual economic success, the President is

committed to providing equal access to quality

postsecondary education for all Americans.

—Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education

Sally L. Stroup
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 69

The Department provides support for enhancing both the quality of and access

to postsecondary and adult education and employment in multiple ways. The

Department’s programs provide financial aid to increase access to postsecondary

education, help institutions of higher education improve their quality, provide

mentoring and tutoring services to help students master the knowledge needed

to get into and complete college, inform middle- and high-school students

about what it takes to go to college, continue to provide support to help people

with disabilities achieve employment, and provide support to adults in meeting

more basic educational needs. The Department is working to improve the

effectiveness of all institutions, including four-year colleges and universities,

community colleges, technology-based programs, and others. In addition, in

new Objective 5.6, the Department will strengthen the capacity of institutions to

meet the need for U.S. experts in foreign languages, area studies, and

international issues. This year the Department is proposing legislation for the

reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to ensure that our nation’s students

have access to high-quality higher education and are prepared for employment

in a competitive marketplace.

Approximately 41 percent of the Department’s FY 2004 budget request will

support Goal 5.

Objective 5.1

Reduce the gaps in college access and completion among student populations

differing by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability while increasing

the educational attainment of all.

Objective 5.2

Strengthen accountability of postsecondary education institutions.

Objective 5.3

Establish effective funding mechanisms for postsecondary education.

Objective 5.4

Strengthen Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving

Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities.

Objective 5.5

Enhance the literacy and employment skills of American adults.

Objective 5.6

Increase the capacity of U.S. postsecondary education institutions to teach

world languages, area studies, and international issues.

5
70 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 5.1 Reduce the gaps in college

access and completion

among student

populations differing by

race/ethnicity,

socioeconomic status, and

disability while increasing

the educational

attainment of all

The economy of the 21st century requires that more workers than ever develop skills and master

knowledge beyond the high school level. Although progress has been made over the years to

increase participation and graduation levels for all individuals, large gaps still exist between lowincome students and middle- and high-income students, between minority and nonminority

students, and between students with disabilities and their nondisabled peers. The Department is

working to improve the performance of all students through its student financial-aid and

institutional-aid programs. In addition, the Department is continuing its efforts to enhance

preparation for college, increase knowledge about college preparation and financial aid availability,

and improve college support services for students from all economic and social backgrounds. The

Department is also aggressively implementing the President’s New Freedom Initiative.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 5.1

Strategy A: Enhance efforts to prepare low-income and minority youth for

college

a. Implement changes in the Upward Bound competition to improve program effectiveness by

targeting higher-risk students and providing work-study positions.

b. Provide technical assistance to Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate

Programs (GEAR UP), Upward Bound, Talent Search, Education Opportunities Centers grantees,

and prospective faith-based applicants to improve outreach to students and parents about

academic preparation for college, college entrance requirements and costs, and financial aid

availability.

c. Provide technical assistance and support to College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP)

grantees on effective practices that lead to retention and graduation.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 71

Strategy B: Promote access to postsecondary education and successful

transition to the workforce

a. Develop and disseminate information about best practices for using Web-based distance

learning to increase access to high-quality postsecondary education.

b. Identify requisite skills and knowledge for making a successful transition between high school

and community colleges, as well as strategies for enhancing successful completion of programs

for students enrolled in community colleges and their transition to four-year programs.

c. Identify and disseminate information on effective transitional practices, developed by

community colleges for adult learners, that improve the rate at which adult basic education

students make a successful transition into community college academic and technical

programs.

d. Develop, identify, and highlight unified state adult education delivery systems that effectively

coordinate the efforts of state and local offices, agencies, and providers to offer fully

articulated adult basic skills services.

e. In cooperation with the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD),

strengthen the mathematics skills of adult basic education participants through the

identification of effective mathematics instructional models and through college development

and remediation efforts.

f. Through the Labor Market Responsiveness Initiative, identify and disseminate effective

practices, indicators, and measures that community colleges have established to respond

immediately to changes in the economy and workforce demographics.

Strategy C: Provide support to students with disabilities

a. Develop new initiatives to advance the President’s New Freedom Initiative.

b. Identify and complete the Office for Civil Rights’ enforcement initiatives that help parents,

students, and schools assist students with disabilities in making an effective transition from

high school to college.

c. Identify factors in secondary school and postschool experiences of youth with disabilities that

contribute to positive results through the National Longitudinal Transition Study.

d. Conduct rigorous evaluations of educational supports that contribute to the completion of

postsecondary programs and workplace success for students with disabilities.

e. Develop and distribute a practical guide to help students with disabilities make the transition

from high school to postsecondary education and employment.
72 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Performance Measures for Objective 5.1

The percentage of 16- to 24-year-old high school graduates enrolled in college the

October following high school graduation.

College

Enrollment

Overall

White

African American

White–African American

Gap

65.6 62.9 63.3 61.7 P 64.1 64.5

68.5 66.3 65.7 64.2 P 67.0 67.1

61.9 58.9 54.9 54.6 P 60.3 61.0

6.6 7.4 10.8 9.6 P 6.7 6.1

Hispanic

White–Hispanic Gap

Low Income

High Income

Income Gap

47.4 42.2 52.9 51.7 P 51.5 53.1

21.1 24.1 12.8 12.5 P 15.5 14.0

46.4 49.4 49.7 43.8 P 53.5 56.6

77.3 76.0 77.1 79.8 P 77.0 77.1

30.9 26.6 27.4 36.0 P 23.5 20.6

College

Graduation (4-

Year Institutions)

The percentage of full-time, bachelor’s degree-seeking students who graduate within

six years.

The percentage of full-time degree- or certificate-seeking students who graduate, earn

a certificate, or transfer from two-year institutions within three years.

Overall

White

African American

White–African American

Gap

52.6 53.0 52.4 P P 53.1 53.6

55.8 56.0 55.4 P P 56.1 56.2

34.5 35.4 35.7 P P 38.9 40.9

21.3 20.6 19.7 P P 17.2 15.3

Hispanic

White–Hispanic Gap

39.1 40.9 41.5 P P 42.5 44.1

16.7 15.1 13.9 P P 13.6 12.1

Completions (2-

Year Institutions)

White

All 32.2 34.4 32.7 P P 32.7 33.0

33.8 35.3 34.0 P P 34.1 34.2

African American 25.1 29.5 26.5 P P 27.0 27.8

White–Hispanic Gap 3.9 2.8 3.9 P P 3.3 3.0

White–African American

Gap

8.7 5.8 7.5 P P 7.1 6.4

Hispanic 29.9 32.5 30.1 P P 30.8 31.2

Objective 5.1: Reduce the Gaps in College Access and Completion among Student Populations

Differing by Race/Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Disability

While Increasing the Educational Attainment of All

Measures Performance Data

1999

Targets

1998* 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

* Baseline

P = Pending

Notes:

See next page.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 73

Objective 5.1: Reduce the Gaps in College Access and Completion Among Student Populations

Differing by Race/Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Disability

While Increasing the Educational Attainment of All (continued)

Measures Performance Data

1999

Targets

1998 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

The percentage of

families who plan to help

child pay for his/her

education after high

school.

Set

baseline

The percentage of

families who believe they

have enough information

about the amount needed

for college or vocational

school to start planning

how to pay for child’s

education.

NA NA NA NA NA NM Set

baseline

Paying

for

College

NA NA NA NA NA NM

NM = New measure for FY 2004; not a measure for FY 2003

Notes:

For FY 2004, some measures have been dropped from this objective, others have been revised, and others have been added.

Please see “Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

COLLEGE ENROLLMENT

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, October Current Population Survey.

Additional Information: These projections illustrate a goal of cutting the various gaps in half from 2002 to 2007.

COLLEGE GRADUATION; COMPLETIONS

Source: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Graduation Rate Survey (GRS) as part of the

Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS).

Additional Information: These projections illustrate a goal of cutting the various gaps in half from 2002 to 2007.

PAYING FOR COLLEGE

Source: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Household Education Survey (NHES).
74 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 5.2 Strengthen accountability

of postsecondary

education institutions

Although American institutions of higher education are among the best in the world, the public and

many policymakers are especially concerned about the effectiveness of postsecondary education

institutions in two areas: preparing high-quality teachers and completing the education of students

within a reasonable time. An effective strategy for ensuring that institutions are held accountable

for results is to make information on student achievement and attainment available to the public. In

this way, prospective students will be able to make informed choices about where to attend college

and how to spend their tuition dollars.

Addressing widespread concern about the quality of new teachers, Congress established an

accountability system for teacher preparation programs in Title II of the Higher Education Act (HEA)

when reauthorizing this Act in 1998. This system provides basic information on the quality of

teacher program completers. Public and congressional critics of this system note, however, that it

needs to be strengthened to produce information that is more useful to the public and

policymakers. As part of the next reauthorization of HEA, the Department will recommend

refinements to this system.

Congress has also addressed concerns about the effectiveness of postsecondary education

institutions in graduating students in a timely fashion. In amendments to the HEA in 1992,

Congress required institutions of higher education to report the proportions of their students who

complete their educational programs. Critics have pointed out that these measures are not

effectively integrated into accountability systems in most states and thus are not routinely used in

evaluating postsecondary education institutions. In the upcoming reauthorization, the Department

will propose steps to strengthen the usefulness of these measures. Successfully meeting this

objective will require the cooperation of the postsecondary community, the states, and Congress.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 5.2

Strategy A: Refine accountability systems to support the Higher Education

Act (HEA)

a. Ensure accountability in the HEA Title II reporting system while improving the data quality and

reducing the reporting burden.

b. Develop an Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE) Monitoring and Performance Tracking

System to provide enhanced automated tracking of the status of all grants as well as an early

alert warning system for potential problems with grantees.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 75

Performance Measures for Objective 5.2

*Baseline

NA = Not available

HEA = Higher Education Act

Notes:

For FY 2004, one measure has been dropped from this objective. Please see “Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007 Strategic

Plan,” beginning on page 107.

REPORT SUBMISSION

Source: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, HEA Title II Data System, The Secretary’s Annual

Report on Teacher Quality.

Measures

Report

Submission

The percentage of states and

territories submitting HEA

Title II reports with all data

reported using federally

required definitions.

Performance Data

1999

NA

Objective 5.2: Strengthen Accountability of Postsecondary Education Institutions

Targets

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA 63* 80 100 100
76 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 5.3 Establish effective funding

mechanisms for

postsecondary education

The financing of postsecondary education continues to be a challenge for many students and their

families. According to the College Board, the average costs of attendance for 2002–03 are $18,273

for four-year private institutions (up 5.8 percent from the previous year); $4,081 in four-year public

institutions (up 9.6 percent from the previous year); and $1,735 for two-year public institutions (up

7.9 percent from the previous year). With tuitions rising faster than inflation, students are

borrowing more money than in the past to attend college. Between 1990 and 1999, the median

cumulative student federal loan amount borrowed for college nearly tripled, rising from $4,000 to

$11,199. Students are increasingly turning to nonfederal sources of loans, including credit cards,

to pay college expenses. These trends are occurring even though funding for Pell Grants,

Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, and other campus-based aid programs continues to

grow.

In response to the concerns about the price of college, the Department is continuing to examine the

factors that contribute to the rising costs of postsecondary education. The Department is seeking

ideas and suggestions for achieving cost efficiencies and cost reductions among postsecondary

education institutions. The Department is also considering effective funding strategies for

nontraditional and part-time students, including those participating in distance learning via

technology. The Department will then disseminate its findings. In addition, the Department is

continuing to work toward a more efficient federal student aid process for the benefit of all parties

participating in these programs.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 5.3

Strategy A: Improve the efficiency of the federal student aid process

a. Continue to work with Congress to make improvements to the HEA Title IV aid process,

including increasing access to postsecondary education through Pell Grants and other student

aid, through the HEA reauthorization process.

b. Consult with higher education community on ways to improve the efficiency of the HEA Title

IV aid process in preparation for the Department’s Higher Education Act reauthorization

proposal.

Strategy B: Improve postsecondary education funding strategies

a. Propose and implement policies for achieving cost efficiencies and cost reductions at

postsecondary education institutions.

b. Continue to encourage Student Support Services grantees to use the maximum of federal grant

funds (up to 20 percent) for grant aid by providing examples of how they might reallocate

funds.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 77

Borrower indebtedness

(expressed as average

borrower payments) for

federal student loans as a

percentage of borrower

income.

c. Publish and widely disseminate to postsecondary education institutions, states, and others a

study group’s recommendations for achieving cost efficiencies and cost reductions at

postsecondary institutions.

Performance Measures for Objective 5.3

* Baseline NA = Not available P = Pending

Notes:

For FY 2004, one measure has been revised and some targets have been changed. Please see “Interim Adjustments to the

2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

COLLEGE TUITION

Sources: College Board (for October data)

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Data System (IPEDS) (for

December data).

UNMET NEED

Source: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey (NPSAS).

Additional Information: NPSAS is collected only every four years, so estimates will have to be made for intervening period.

INDEBTEDNESS

Sources: Department of Education, Federal loan records from the National Student Loan Data System (NSLDS).

Internal Revenue Service, Income data.

Measures

College

Tuition

Average national increase in

college tuition in percentage,

adjusted for inflation.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

5.4 4.5 3.1* 6.4 3.0 2.9

Objective 5.3: Establish Effective Funding Mechanisms for Postsecondary Education

Unmet need as a percentage

of the cost of attendance for

low-income dependent

students.

NA 43.1* NA NA 41 40

Unmet need as a percentage

of the cost of attendance for

low-income independent

students with children.

NA 60.6* NA NA 58 57

Unmet

Need

Unmet need as a percentage

of the cost of attendance for

low-income independent

students without children.

NA 46.2* NA NA 44 43

6.5 6.4 NA P Less

than

10% in

first

year of

repayment

Less

than

10% in

first

year of

repayment

Indebtedness
78 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 5.4 Strengthen Historically

Black Colleges and

Universities, HispanicServing Institutions, and

Tribal Colleges and

Universities

An important strategy in closing the gap between low-income and minority students and their

high-income, non-minority peers is to strengthen the quality of educational opportunities in

institutions dedicated to serving low-income and minority students. Through various programs

and initiatives, the Department promotes the quality of institutions serving these students. The

Department can and should do more, however, such as offering access to information, training, and

technical assistance opportunities that contribute to the fiscal soundness of these institutions.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 5.4

Strategy A: Offer technical assistance for planning, implementation, and

evaluation

a. Develop guidance for establishing accountability standards against which the performance of

institutions serving special populations is measured.

b. Encourage states to include HBCUs, Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), and Tribal Colleges

and Universities (TCUs) in their ESEA Title II activities to improve teacher preparation and

professional development.

c. Incorporate planning, implementation, and evaluation components into the Institutional

Development and Undergraduate Education Programs (IDUES) project directors’ meetings,

including expert speakers from the field and experienced project directors as appropriate.

d. Provide technical assistance and outreach to the faculty of HBCUs in order to increase their

capacity and knowledge of discretionary grant programs offered throughout the Department

and other federal agencies so that they may become more competitive.

Strategy B: Assist in promoting the technology infrastructure of institutions

serving low-income and minority students

a. Incorporate technology components into IDUES project directors’ meeting, including expert

speakers from the field and experienced project directors as appropriate.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 79

Measures

Fiscal Balance

The percentage of HBCUs,

HSIs, and TCUs with a positive

fiscal balance.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA 67 71 P 79 84

Objective 5.4: Strengthen Historically Black Colleges and Universities,

Hispanic-Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges and Universities

The percentage of HBCUs,

HSIs, and TCUs with evidence

of increased technological

capacity (such as wireless

systems, high speed Internet

connections, distance learning

programs, or other evidence

of technological innovation).

NA NA NA P* Baseline

(2002)

+

10 PP

Baseline

+

20 PP

Technological

Capacity

Performance Measures for Objective 5.4

* Baseline

NA = Not available

HBCUs = Historically Black Colleges and Universities

HSIs = Hispanic-Serving Institutions

TCUs = Tribal Colleges and Universities

PP = Percentage points

P = Pending

Notes:

FISCAL BALANCE

Source: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

(IPEDS).

Additional Information: Data are self-reported from institutions and estimate the total universe in this indicator. Nearly all

HBCUs, HSIs, and TCUs participate in the IPEDS Financial Report and are, therefore, represented by the data. An institution’s

status as an HSI is determined by Hispanic and low-income student enrollment, which can fluctuate from year to year and

cannot be exactly determined from IPEDS enrollment data. However, a reasonable approximation can be based on the IPEDS

enrollment data.

TECHNOLOGICAL CAPACITY

Source: Department of Education, HEA Title III and Title V Annual Reports.
80 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 5.5 Enhance the literacy and

employment skills of

American adults

The National Assessment of Literacy Skills (1992) indicates that between 70 and 90 million adults

in the United States have limited literacy skills, including English language proficiency, which

inhibit their ability to support their families and exercise other important social responsibilities.

Shockingly, this number includes an estimated 10 million high school graduates and 1.5 million

college graduates. Current classroom-based services reach about only 3 million individuals with

adult basic education and English literacy services. Combined with education services delivered

through other social services for adults, only a fraction of the need for enhanced literacy is being

addressed. Working with state and local partners, we are developing new models of flexible, highquality basic education and English literacy services to help a larger percentage of America’s adult

population, including individuals with disabilities, to acquire the literacy skills they need for the

workplace, for postsecondary learning, and for lifelong personal and career growth. We are also

working with state vocational rehabilitation programs, other federal agencies, and private

organizations to improve employment outcomes for adults with disabilities.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 5.5

Strategy A: Implement performance standards

a. Make state vocational rehabilitation agency performance data available to the public on the

Department of Education’s Web site.

b. Identify state vocational rehabilitation agencies that are at risk of not meeting the established

performance levels for Standard I (employment outcomes) and provide targeted technical

assistance.

Strategy B: Invest in research on adult literacy and English language

acquisition

a. Provide support to the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) for

developing a new strand of research on effective practices in adult education and family

literacy programs; and create a What Works in Adult Literacy publication.

b. Maintain collaboration with NICHD on biliteracy research program to improve the research base

in this area and compete funding of the initial round of grants.

c. Initiate random assignment evaluation of federally funded Adult English as a Second Language

programs.

d. Enhance the productivity of the Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) program by

implementing a technical assistance center.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 81

e. Prepare synthesis of existing research by program area and propose a research agenda for new

research that will meet the “what works” criteria.

Strategy C: Fund demonstration projects and disseminate research best

practices

a. Oversee and coordinate with the Interagency Committee on Disability Research the

development of a Web site that consumers can use to identify research questions that they need

answered.

b. In order to ensure the dissemination of best practices, develop methods to assess the usefulness

of research, training, and technical assistance and services to consumers and other

stakeholders.

c. Support and evaluate demonstration projects designed to enhance literacy levels, earnings, and

other employment outcomes of individuals with disabilities.

d. Establish a series of projects to demonstrate effective models of mentoring youth with

disabilities as they make the transition from school to work or postsecondary programs.

e. Develop partnerships, where possible, that involve faith-based and community organizations in

providing adult literacy programs.

f. Comprehensively review English language acquisition, work-based programs, and skills training

through the Postsecondary Education Futures project to identify best practices.

Strategy D: Develop technology-based solutions

a. Develop online curriculum resources to support the use of technology-based instruction in

adult education, English as a second language, and literacy development.

b. Collaborate with the National Technology Laboratory for the Improvement of Adult Education

to document best practices in technology-based instruction, create professional development in

the use of technology, and sponsor hands-on demonstration sites.

c. Facilitate interagency coordination in developing improved technology transfer so that the

results of federally funded research have a higher probability of becoming solutions for

improving employment and independent-living skills of people with disabilities.
82 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Performance Measure for Objective 5.5

* Baseline

NA = Not available

X = A target is not set because data will not be available for that year.

P = Pending

VR = Vocational rehabilitation

Notes:

ADULT LITERACY

Source: Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, National Assessments of Adult Literacy (NAAL).

Additional Information: For this indicator, we are measuring prose literacy.

EMPLOYMENT OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES

Source: Department of Education, Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA), 113 Quarterly Cumulative Caseload Report.

The percentage of all

persons served by

state VR agencies who

obtain employment.

Employment NA 62.5* 62.5 P 63.5 64.0

of Individuals

with

Disabilities

Measures

Adult Literacy

The percentage of

adults reading at the

lowest level of literacy

in national adult

literacy assessments.

Performance Data

1999

NA

Objective 5.5: Enhance the Literacy and Employment Skills of American Adults

Targets

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA X 17.0

1992

21*
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 83

Objective 5.6 Increase the capacity of

U.S. postsecondary

education institutions to

teach world languages,

area studies, and

international issues

Department programs continue to be instrumental in meeting the national need for U.S. experts in

foreign languages, world regions, and international issues, particularly in the less commonly taught

languages and regions of the world. We have added this new objective to highlight our work in

this area. We are helping postsecondary education institutions to strengthen and expand student

participation in these programs. We are also supporting the development of partnerships between

U.S. and appropriate foreign postsecondary education institutions to promote opportunities for

students and faculty who can benefit from international experiences that enhance their knowledge

and skills.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 5.6

Strategy A: Strengthen foreign language and area studies programs

a. Assist institutions of higher education to expand student participation in, and improve the

quality of, foreign language study, as well as area and international studies, through HEA

Title VI programs.

b. Assist institutions of higher education to expand student participation in, and improve the

quality of, study and research opportunities abroad.

Strategy B: Strengthen international linkages among postsecondary

education institutions

a. Support the development of international higher-education consortia through the Fund for the

Improvement of Postsecondary Education’s mobility in higher education programs.

All future measures of a rigorous education must include a

solid grounding in other cultures, other languages, and other

histories. In other words, we need to put the word “world”

back in “world-class education.”

—Secretary Rod Paige
84 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Performance Measures for Objective 5.6

NA = Not available

Note:

For FY 2004, new measures have been added for this new objective. Please see “Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007

Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

FOREIGN LANGUAGE AND INTERNATIONAL STUDIES

Source: Institute of International Education, Open Doors Survey.

INTERNATIONAL POSTSECONDARY CONSORTIA

Source: Department of Education, Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education.

Measures

Foreign

Language and

International

Studies

Number of students

graduating from National

Resource Center-funded

programs.

Performance Data

1999

NA

Objective 5.6: Increase the Capacity of U.S. Postsecondary Education Institutions to Teach World

Languages, Area Studies, and International Issues

Targets

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA 46,000 47,000

Percentage of international

postsecondary consortia

projects that are

institutionalized after the

conclusion of the grant period.

NA NA NA NA 42 44

International

Postsecondary

Consortia
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 85 Goal 6
86 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

6 STRATEGIC GOAL SIX:

Establish Management

Excellence throughout the

Department of Education

There is an understandable temptation

to ignore management reforms in favor of new policies

and programs. However, what matters most is performance.

—President George W. Bush
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 87

To create a culture of achievement throughout the nation’s schools, we are

continuing our efforts to create a culture of accountability within the

Department by aggressively implementing the President’s Management Agenda.

We are leveraging the contributions of faith-based and community organizations

so that students can benefit from additional local support. Through our work to

create a culture of accountability and establish management excellence, we will

earn the President’s Quality Award.

Approximately 2 percent of the Department’s FY 2004 budget request will

support Goal 6.

Objective 6.1

Develop and maintain financial integrity and management and internal controls.

Objective 6.2

Improve the strategic management of the Department’s human capital.

Objective 6.3

Manage information technology resources, using electronic government (e-gov),

to improve services for our customers and partners.

Objective 6.4

Modernize the Student Financial Assistance programs and reduce their high-risk

status.

Objective 6.5

Achieve budget and performance integration to link funding decisions to results.

Objective 6.6

Leverage the contributions of faith-based and community organizations to

increase the effectiveness of Department programs.

Objective 6.7

By becoming a high-performance, customer-focused organization, earn the

President’s Quality Award.

6
88 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 6.1 Develop and maintain

financial integrity and

management and internal

controls

The first step toward management excellence is to provide managers and external stakeholders

with timely financial information to help them in making programmatic and asset-related decisions.

Financial integrity also means that we maintain effective internal controls to reduce the risk of

errors and permit effective monitoring of programs and processes and that employees assume

responsibility for identifying and addressing problems.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.1

Strategy A: Update and integrate financial systems

a. Upgrade Oracle Federal Financials to version 11i.

b. Ensure that data from the new Federal Student Aid (FSA) financial management system is

adequately integrated with the Department’s system.

c. Perform feeder systems reconciliations to the general ledger within 45 days of the end of each

calendar month.

d. Prepare quarterly financial statements with analysis and make accounting adjustments as

necessary within 60 days.

Strategy B: Prepare financial statements to provide leading data on

Department performance

a. Reduce the number of material weaknesses and reportable conditions in the annual financial

statement audit report.

b. Reduce the number of material weaknesses and nonconformances reported in the Federal

Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA).

c. Submit the Department’s audited fiscal year 2003 financial statements to the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) by November 15, 2003.

Strategy C: Analyze data to reduce fraud

a. Conduct data mining (an analysis of existing data to identify patterns) to detect possible fraud

and abuse that is internal as well as external to the Department. Suspected fraud or abuse will

be referred to the Office of Inspector General (OIG).
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 89

Strategy D: Review existing internal controls and implement changes where

necessary

a. Prepare the updates on monitoring methods and activities (if necessary) in the annual strategic

plan that each principal office sends to the Secretary.

b. Complete regular reviews of internal controls that support the Department’s primary activities.

c. Ensure timely award of new grants.

d. Ensure that action plans are developed within 60 days after the Office of the Inspector General

(OIG) issues final reports and that recommendations are implemented within the established

time frames.

e. Continue to support legislation for improved information sharing between the Treasury

Department, the Internal Revenue Service, and the Department.

f. Continue to improve and evaluate the Department’s Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP).

Strategy E: Increase the use of performance-based grants and contracts

a. Redesign the competitive and grant application and review process.

b. Increase the use and effectiveness of performance-based contracting.

The Department of Education has received the first clean audit

in many years and only the second one in the history of the

Department. And this is not going to be an aberration; this is

going to be a standard way of operating.

—Secretary Rod Paige
90 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Performance Measures for Objective 6.1

NA = Not available

TBD = To be determined

Notes:

For FY 2004, two measures for this objective have been combined into one and the target changed. Please see “Interim

Adjustments to the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

AUDIT OPINION

Source: Independent Auditors’ Financial Statement and Audit Report.

OPEN AUDIT RECOMMENDATIONS

Sources: Department of Education, Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Internal Audit Electronic Corrective Action Plan

System.

PERFORMANCE-BASED CONTRACTS

Source: Department of Education, Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO), Central Automated Processing System

(EDCAPS) and Federal Procurement Data Source (FPDS).

Measures

The achievement of an

unqualified audit opinion.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Qualified Qualified Qualified UnqualifiedUnqualifiedUnqualified

Objective 6.1: Develop and Maintain Financial Integrity and Management and Internal Controls

Audit Opinion

The financial management

grade received on report card

by the Subcommittee on

Government Efficiency,

Financial Management and

Intergovernmental Relations.

D- D- D- Pending B A

Financial

Management

Report Card

The number of audit

recommendations from prioryear financial statement

audits remaining open.

48 18 19 8 7 6

Open Audit

Recommendations

The percentage of

performance-based contract

actions.

NA NA 44 45 45

PerformanceBased

Contracts

NA

The percentage of eligible

dollars in performance-based

contract actions.

20 43 52 59 50 50

The percentage of erroneous

payments.

NA NA NA NA Set

baseline

Baseline

- 5 %

Erroneous

Payments

The federal administrative

cost per grant transaction.

NA NA NA NA Set

baseline

Cost Per TBD

Transaction
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 91

Objective 6.2 Improve the strategic

management of the

Department’s human

capital

A key element of creating a Department-wide culture of performance excellence and accountability

is the strategic investment of human capital. The Department is developing and carrying out a plan

for human capital management that supports the Department’s mission by ensuring that skilled,

high-performing employees are available and deployed appropriately. This plan is supported by a

competitive sourcing plan that ensures that services are provided at a maximum level of cost

effectiveness. We will continue to de-layer the organization and to ensure that our work is citizen

centered.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.2

Strategy A: Develop a five-year human capital plan

a. Develop a recruitment plan.

b. Use existing human capital flexibilities strategically.

c. Develop training programs that focus on required competencies associated with specific career

fields.

d. Implement training programs (learning tracks) that focus on the Department’s needed

competencies.

e. Develop metrics for critical human capital activities.

Strategy B: Identify and obtain needed skills

a. Implement individualized development plans.

b. Implement the Homeland Security Act flexibilities appropriately.

Strategy C: Improve employee performance and accountability

a. Evaluate EDPAS.

b. Realign the mentoring program.

Strategy D: Improve core processes related to human capital management

a. Continue to implement One-ED, the Department’s human capital, competitive sourcing, and

restructuring plan.
92 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

b. Review Department reorganizations that do not occur as a part of the Department’s One-ED

initiative to ensure that the reorganization is delayered and citizen-centered.

c. Plan for human capital needs that could result from competitive sourcing activities.

Strategy E: Improve the use of competitive sourcing

a. Make competitive sourcing decisions (whether and what to compete) on activities that are

examined under the One-ED initiative.

b. Obtain OMB concurrence with competitive sourcing source selection strategy.

c. Identify interagency support service agreements and develop a competition plan.

d. Announce and issue solicitations for activities to be competitively sourced.

e. Make source selection decision on competitively sourced activities that are examined under the

One-ED initiative.

f. Determine activities to be examined under the next phases of the One-ED initiative.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 93

Performance Measures for Objective 6.2

Number of positions for which

solicitations are issued under

the revised A-76 guidelines.

NA NA NA 0

Competitive

Sourcing

Measures Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Objective 6.2: Improve the Strategic Management of the Department’s Human Capital

Percentage of EDPAS

employees who have

documented ratings of record.

Managers’ NA NA NA NA 80 90

use of

EDPAS

15% of

the 2000

Fair Act

Inventory

50% of

the 2000

Fair Act

Inventory

NA = Not applicable EDPAS = Education Department Performance Appraisal System

Notes:

For FY 2004, some measures have been dropped from this objective, others have been added, and some targets have been

changed. Please see “Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

SKILL GAP REDUCTION

Source: Department of Education, Office of Management (OM), Recruitment Plan.

ALIGNMENT

Source: Department of Education, Office of Management (OM), Federal Personnel Payroll System (FPPS).

POOR PERFORMERS

Source: Department of Education, Office of Management (OM), FPPS and Employee Relations Team.

MANAGERS’ USE OF THE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT PERFORMANCE APPRAISAL SYSTEM (EDPAS)

Source: Department of Education, Office of Management (OM), FPPS.

COMPETITIVE SOURCING

Source: Department of Education, Office of Management (OM), Contracts and Purchasing Operations.

Percentage of performance,

cash, and time-off awards that

are given to employees with

ratings in the top three rating

levels in the EDPAS system.

NA NA NA NA 100 100 Alignment

between high

performance

and awards

Skill Gap

Reduction

Percentage of principal offices

that have identified

recruitment needs in their

principal office recruitment

plan and that are taking

actions to fill critical positions

with needed skills.

NA NA NA NA 50 60

Percentage of personnel in the

lowest two EDPAS rating levels

who have performance

improvement activities under

way.

NA NA NA NA 70 80

Addressing

poor

performers
94 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 6.3 Manage information

technology resources,

using e-gov, to improve

services for our customers

and partners

The Department must leverage information technology (IT) to improve the efficiency of its business

functions so that we can better serve our internal and external customers. To achieve the increases

in efficiency, we will first improve and simplify ineffective business processes and, only then, apply

IT to support the new processes. These new processes will, among other things, ensure that all our

external customers, including individuals with disabilities, can exchange data with the Department

effectively and without undue burden. The Department will maintain the confidentiality, privacy,

and integrity of these data. In addition, accountability will be assigned to IT investments, ensuring

that they are managed to performance objectives. Finally, we will further strengthen accountability

by improving the management of data and applying technology more effectively to customerservice efforts.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.3

Strategy A: Complete enterprise architecture

a. Complete the implementation plan for the Department’s enterprise architecture, an enterprisewide framework that integrates business architecture (strategy, governance, organization,

process), data/information architecture, application (systems) architecture, and technology (IT)

architecture.

b. Complete the enterprise architecture target architectures.

c. Continue using enterprise architecture to guide IT capital decisions through the Capital

Planning and Investment Control (CPIC) and Investment Review Board (IRB) processes.

d. Identify cost and schedule change for IT projects.

Strategy B: Ensure security of the IT infrastructure

a. Complete the certification and accreditation of the Department’s major systems (Tier 3 and 4

systems).

b. Complete the certification and accreditation of the Department’s non-mission-critical systems

(Tier 1 and 2 systems).
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 95

Strategy C: Reduce our partners’ data-reporting burden

a. Develop and implement the Performance-Based Data Management Initiative (PBDMI) collection

system.

Strategy D: Encourage customers to conduct business with the Department

online

a. Release eLoans Gateway, a plainspeak Web site that educates citizens on federal loan programs

with links to federal agency and private-sector resources.

b. Conduct change management activities with customers to ensure their knowledge of the

e-grants initiative and the role the Department plays.

c. Participate in the government-wide e-grants initiative.
96 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Performance Measures for Objective 6.3

* Baseline M = Million

NA = Not applicable P = Pending

NM = New measure for FY 2004; not a measure for FY 2003

Notes:

For FY 2004, one measure has been dropped from this objective, others have been added, and one target has been changed.

Please see “Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

BURDEN HOURS OF COLLECTIONS

Sources: Deparment of Education, Office of the Chief Information Officer, Program files.

Office of Management and Budget, Burden calculations.

Additional Information: Data are validated by internal review procedures of the Regulatory Information Management Group

(RIMG) of the Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO). Data are estimated for all of the Department’s data collections

from the public. The Department makes initial estimates and OMB later provides revised estimates.

COST AND SCHEDULE OF IT INVESTMENTS

Source: Department of Education, Office of the Chief Information Officer (OCIO), Program files.

Measures

Percentage of loan programs

providing online application

capability.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA NA 100

Objective 6.3: Manage Information Technology Resources, Using E-gov, to Improve Services for Our

Customers and Partners

Online

Capability Percentage of grant programs

providing online application

capability.

NA NA NA NA 15 50

Percentage of currently

identified Tier 3 and 4 systems

that complete Certification

and Accreditation.

NA NA NA NA NM 100

System

Certification Percentage of currently

identified Tier 1 and 2 systems

that complete Certification

and Accreditation.

NA NA NA NA 10 50

The OMB burden-hour

estimates of Department

program data collections per

year.

42.07M 40.93M 40.65M* 38.40M 38M 36M

Burden Hours

of Collections

The percentage of major IT

investments that achieve less

than a 10% variance of cost

and schedule goals.

NA NA NA P 90 91 Cost and

Schedule of IT

Investments

95
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 97

Objective 6.4 Modernize the Student

Financial Assistance

programs and reduce their

high-risk status

The Department’s Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), is continuing to improve and integrate its

financial and management information systems to manage the student aid programs effectively.

We are reducing the programs’ vulnerability to fraud, waste, error, and mismanagement, so as to

permanently leave the General Accounting Office’s (GAO) high-risk program list.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.4

Strategy A: Create an efficient and integrated delivery system

a. Define an enterprise-wide data strategy that addresses the business flow of data across the

enterprise architecture, primary ownership, standards, management, access methods, and

quality.

b. Implement electronic audits and financial statements.

c. Enhance the use of available financial partner data by implementing Phase III of the Financial

Partners Data Mart.

d. Retire the Pell Grant’s Recipient Financial Management System (RFMS) and the Direct Loan

Origination System (DLOS).

Strategy B: Improve program monitoring

a. Create an infrastructure that provides organizational focus to address risk issues.

b. Complete action items to address material weaknesses in FSA’s financial statement audits in

accordance with agreed-on action plans.

c. Review internal controls in the Financial Management System (FMS) to ensure that data are

accurate, reliable, available, and timely, in order to maintain adequate stewardship and

accountability.

d. Use measures for compliance and oversight activities to evaluate the effectiveness of case

management, including technical assistance.

e. Identify school fund management, reconciliation, and closeout process improvements and fill

gaps in current operational procedures related to reconciliation.

f. Demonstrate improved risk-management and default-prevention strategies.
98 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Measures Performance Data Targets

Objective 6.4: Modernize the Student Financial Assistance Programs and

Reduce Their High-Risk Status

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA 94% of

Plan

Accomplished

Clean

opinion

and leave

the GAO

High-Risk

List

through

requested

reconsideration of

designation by

GAO

i. Clean

opinion

ii. Address

internal

audit

recommendations

meeting

the 95%

standard

iii. Meet

program

integration

goals in

the FY

2004 FSA

Performance

Plan

7.5 7.8* 7.6 7.6 8.0

NA NA 3.4

($272M)

3.3

($330M)

3.1 3.1

8.0

NA NA NA NA 3.6 3.6

NA NA NA 45 Oct.–Mar.:

40 days

Apr.–

Sept.:

30 days

30 days

NA NA NA NA Set

baseline

Maintain

or improve

NA NA NA 100% of

FY 2002

targets

100% of

2004

targets in

FSA’s

sequencing plan

100% of

2003

targets in

FSA’s

sequencing plan

and reevaluate

goals for

2004–2007

Performance Measures for Objective 6.4

* Baseline

NA = Not available

M = Million

FSA = Office of Federal Student Aid

SFA = Student Financial Assistance (programs)

By 2003, the Student Financial

Assistance (SFA) programs will

leave the GAO high-risk list

and will not return.

The percentage of Pell grant

overpayments.

Default recovery rate

(percentage).

The percentage of Pell grant

erroneous payments.

Timeliness of FSA major

system reconciliations to the

general ledger, expressed as

the number of days after

month-end close.

Customer service (measures of

service levels of targeted FSA

transactions with public).

Integration of FSA processes

and systems that work

together to support FSA

program delivery functions.

Leave

High-Risk List

Recovery Rate

System

Reconciliations

Pell Grant

Erroneous

Payments

Customer

Service

Integration

of Systems
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 99

Notes:

For FY 2004, some measures for this objective have been revised, others have been added, and some targets have been changed.

Please see “Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

LEAVE HIGH RISK LIST

Sources: Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), FSA High Risk Plan.

Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), FSA Progress Reports.

Government Accounting Office (GAO), High Risk List.

RECOVERY RATE

Source: Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), Debt Collection Management Systems (DCMS) MIS

reports.

Additional Information: Defined as the sum of FSA’s collections on defaulted loans—less consolidation—divided by the

outstanding default portfolio at the end of the previous year, expressed as a percentage.

PELL GRANT ERRONEOUS PAYMENTS

Source: Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), Analysis of sampled IRS income data to data reported

on the Free Application for Federal Student Aid reported by FSA and Recipient Financial Management System.

Additional Information: These targets have been modified from dollar amounts, as they appeared in the Strategic Plan, to

percents.

SYSTEM RECONCILIATIONS

Source: Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), Internal System Reports.

CUSTOMER SERVICE

Source: Department of Education, Office of Federal Student Aid (FSA), Internal FSA Progress Reports.
100 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 6.5 Achieve budget and

performance integration to

link funding decisions to

results

The Department is seeking funding for programs that work and is seeking to reform or eliminate

programs that do not. To ensure that high-priority activities are funded, the budget execution

process is being linked to the Department’s Strategic Plan. To provide timely feedback for

management at the agency and government levels, the Department is developing integrated

budgeting, performance, and accounting information systems at the program level.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.5

Strategy A: Align budget and planning processes

a. Integrate budget, financial, and performance data in planning and performance documents.

b. Prepare outcome-based performance measures for programs that now lack them, for use in

budget and PART reviews.

c. Conduct workshops to help prepare programs for PART reviews.

Strategy B: Document program effectiveness

a. Establish performance measures for grant administration.

b. Review program performance measures to ensure that they are consistent with program goals

and are outcome oriented.

c. Implement competitive priority for grant programs that provides incentive for applicants to

propose rigorous, scientific evaluations, complete with experimental designs.

The action steps under Objective 1.1 also further the objective of budget and performance

integration.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 101

Performance Measures for Objective 6.5

Measures

Program

Effectiveness

The percentage of Department

programs reviewed under the

PART process that demonstrate

effectiveness.

Performance Data

1999

NA

Objective 6.5: Achieve Budget and Performance Integration to Link Funding Decisions to Results

Targets

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA 29 40 50

The percentage of Department

program dollars associated

with programs reviewed under

the PART process that

demonstrate effectiveness.

NA NA NA 55 60 65

NA = Not available

Notes:

For FY 2004, these measures have been revised and the targets have been changed. Please see “Interim Adjustments to the

2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

FEDERAL PROGRAM ACCOUNTABILITY

Source: Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary (ODS), Strategic Accountability Service (SAS), Analysis of the

Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) scores.

Additional Information: The Department bases these measures on programs that are reviewed by OMB under the PART. We

define effective programs as those with scores of at least 50 percent on Section IV of the PART and compare the number of

effective programs with the number of programs that are reviewed under the PART. At this point only a relatively small

number of programs are reviewed under the PART process. However, over time, we expect that a greater number of programs

will be reviewed by this method.
102 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Objective 6.6 Leverage the contributions

of faith-based and

community organizations

to increase the

effectiveness of

Department programs

America is richly blessed by the diversity and vigor of its neighborhood heroes—civic, social,

charitable, and religious groups. These quiet champions lift people’s lives, usually on very small

budgets. They heal our nation’s ills, one heart and one act of kindness at a time. The indispensable

and transforming work of charitable service groups—including faith-based and community

organizations—must be encouraged. These organizations bring to their work the spirit of

compassion, volunteerism, and close connections to communities. The Department encourages

their active participation in its programs.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.6

Strategy A: Provide technical assistance and outreach and implement novice

applicant procedures

a. Implement a plan for improved communications with, and outreach to, faith-based and

community organization.

b. Implement technical assistance plan and novice applicant reform.

Strategy B: Remove barriers to the full participation of faith-based and

community organizations

a. Promulgate policy and regulations removing barriers to full participation of faith-based and

community organizations in Department programs.

b. Improve understanding of legal issues regarding ground rules for participation of faith-based

and community organizations in Department programs.

c. Establish a pilot project targeting faith-based and community organizations to be providers of

supplemental services in Department programs.

d. Collect and analyze information on the level of faith-based and community organizations’

participation in selected Department programs.

e. Ensure that grant announcements in the Federal Register clarify that faith-based and

community organizations are eligible to apply provided that they meet all statutory and

regulatory requirements.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 103

f. Recruit highly qualified peer reviewers for amenable programs from faith-based and community

organizations and provide appropriate training.

Performance Measures for Objective 6.6

NA = Not applicable

NM = New measure for FY 2004; not a measure for FY 2003

FBCOs = Faith-Based and Community Organizations

Measures

Number of FBCOs who receive

technical assistance concerning

programs amenable to their

participation through the Web

site, attendance at a

workshop, telephonic

consultation, direct meeting,

or receipt of materials.

Performance Data Targets

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA NA NA NM 10,000

Objective 6.6: Leverage the Contributions of Faith-Based and Community Organizations to Increase

the Effectiveness of Department Programs

Issuance of clear guidance that

explains the ground rules for

participation of faith-based

groups in Department grant

programs in accordance with

applicable constitutional

standards.

NA NA NA NA NM Department

issues

clear

guidance

Technical

Assistance

Percentage of programs

amenable to participation by

FBCOs in which novice

applicant reform is

implemented.

NA NA NA 62 50 100

Number of grant applications

from FBCOs in discretionary

grant programs.

NA NA NA NA Set

baseline

Baseline

+

10 %

Grant

Applications

Percentage of program staff

who work on programs open

by statute to FBCOs and

attorneys in the Office of

General Counsel (OGC) that

receive training on the ground

rules for the participation of

FBCOs in the Department’s

grant programs.

NA NA NA NA

Department

Staff Training

NM 100
104 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Note:

For FY 2004, one measure has been dropped from this objective, one has been revised, and others have been added. Please see

“Interim Adjustments to the 2002–2007 Strategic Plan,” beginning on page 107.

NOVICE APPLICANT PROCEDURES

Source: Department of Education, Center for Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Report on Findings, 2001: Annual

Report to the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, 2002.

The president has made it his mission

to level the playing field so good

people who were left out of the

process can now act on their spiritual

imperatives and help others make a

difference and be partners with the

federal government.

—Secretary Rod Paige
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 105

Objective 6.7 By becoming a highperformance, customerfocused organization, earn

the President’s Quality

Award

NA = Not applicable

Note:

Source: Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Application materials.

Measures

President’s

Quality Award

Earn the President’s Quality

Award.

Performance Data

1999

NA

Objective 6.7: By Becoming a High-Performance, Customer-Focused Organization, Earn the

President’s Quality Award

Targets

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

NA NA Department

applied

for the

award

and

gained

insight.

Apply

for the

award

and gain

insight.

Apply

for and

win the

award.

As a result of implementing the President’s Management Agenda, our Strategic Plan, the

recommendations of the Culture of Accountability team, and One-ED (our human capital,

restructuring, and competitive sourcing plan), the Department will be in a position to compete for

and win the President’s Quality Award by FY 2004.

Strategies and Action Steps for Objective 6.7

Strategy A: Apply for the President’s Quality Award

a. Seek and earn the President’s Quality Award.

Performance Measure for Objective 6.7
106 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 107 Adjustments to the Strategic Plan
108 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

The Department published our Strategic Plan in March 2002. This plan set six ambitious goals with

24 objectives. Measures focus almost exclusively on outcomes. Now that we are into the second

year of our Strategic Plan, we find that minor adjustments are appropriate.

We are making no changes to our six goals, and we are as committed to them now as we were

when they were published.

We are adding two objectives to reflect our commitment to international education:

 Objective 2.5: Improve U.S. students’ knowledge of world languages, regions, and

 international issues and build international ties in the field of education.

 Objective 5.6: Increase the capacity of U.S. postsecondary education institutions to teach

 world languages, area studies, and international issues.

We are also modifying some of our measures. These modifications include deleting measures for

which we are unable to obtain data or have determined that alignment is not optimal, revising

some measure statements to more accurately reflect the data we collect or to choose more

appropriate measures (such as rates rather than counts), and adding new measures that better align

with our objectives. We have also modified some targets to take into account our recent

performance, to correct prior data, or to replace “TBD” with numerical targets.

The tables on the following pages identify the adjustments.

Key to Tables on Pages 109–118

M = Million

NM = New measure for FY 2004. Not in effect for FY 2003.

X = Data are not expected to be collected in that year, so the measure does not apply for that

year. This is used where the measure is an ongoing indicator but collections are biennial

or less frequent.

Interim Adjustments to the

2002–2007 Strategic Plan
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 109 The percentage of Department programs that have developed and disseminated research-based “what works” guides to their grantees. The percentage of policymakers and school administrators who report that they use research products of the Department in policymaking decisions. Percentage of ED employees who believe that their organization has set high but realistic, results-oriented work expectations for them. Percentage of non-statutory barriers relating to technical assistance and outreach identified in the Report on Findings that are removed. The following measures have been deleted from the Strategic Plan Effective FY 2004. Measure Objective The number of states approved for Ed-Flex. 1.2 1.4 The percentage of “what works” guides that are deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of qualified scientists. 1.4 Drug Use—percentage of youth ages 12–17 who reported using cocaine in the past 30 days. 3.1 Drug Use—percentage of youth ages 12–17 who reported using heroin in the past 30 days. 3.1 4.2 Awareness of financial aid for all students and for disaggregated groups. 5.1 Awareness of academic requirements for all students and for disaggregated groups. 5.1 The percentage of states with comprehensive reporting systems for colleges and universities. 5.2 Percentage of ED employees who are focused on results. 6.2 Percentage of ED employees who hold their leaders in high regard. 6.2 6.2 Percentage of ED employees who believe that their organization supports their development and expects them to improve their skills and learn new skills to do their jobs better. 6.2 Percentage of managers satisfied with services received from OM when hiring staff. 6.2 Percentage of customer ratings of ED IT services as “good” or better. 6.3 6.6
110 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education The following measures or targets have been revised. (Revisions are shown in italics.) Objective 1.1 Measure 2003 Target 2004 Target 2005 Target 2006 Target 2007 Target The percentage of Department programs reviewed under the PART process that demonstrate effectiveness. 40 50 1.1 The percentage of Department program dollars associated with programs reviewed under the PART process that demonstrate effectiveness. 60 65 1.2 Set baseline Baseline + 10% 1.2 36 M 1.2 65 67 1.3 2.3 The percentage of school districts utilizing Local-Flex, Transferability, or Rural Flexibility. The OMB burden-hour estimate of Department program data collections per year. NAEP 12th-grade reading for all students, for African American students, for Hispanic students, for students with disabilities, and for limited English proficient students. Baseline + 20% Baseline + 30% Baseline + 40% As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan Set baseline Baseline + 5% Baseline + 10% Baseline + 25% Baseline + 40% As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan

X

The percentage of Departmentgrantees that expresssatisfaction with Departmentcustomer service.The percentage of parents whoreport having the informationthey need to determine theeffectiveness of their child’sschool.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 111 3.1 Substance use at school— marijuana As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan 3 3 3.1 7 5 As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan Substance use at school— cigarettes 3.1 Substance use at school—alcohol As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan

4

3.1 Drug Use—tobacco 11 As printed in Strategic Plan 11 10 10

3.1 14

Drug Use—percentage of youthages 12–17 who reported usingin the last 30 days—alcohol

As printed inStrategic Plan 14 13 13

3.1

Rate of serious violent crimes at

school (replaces number ofserious violent crimes).

4/1000 4/1000 4/1000 4/1000 4/1000

The following measures or targets have been revised. (Revisions are shown in italics.) (continued)

Objective Measure 2003 Target 2004 Target 2005 Target 2006 Target 2007 Target

2.3

The percentage of all 12th-gradestudents who scored 3 or higher onthe AP American history exam.

0.40 0.45

3.1

Rate of violent crimes at school

(replaces number of violentcrimes).

2.3

NAEP 12th-grade mathematics forall students, for African Americanstudents, for Hispanic students, forstudents with disabilities, and forlimited English proficient students.

As printed inStrategic Plan

As printed inStrategic Plan

As printed inStrategic Plan

X

X

0.55 0.65 0.80

24/1000 23/1000 22/1000 21/1000 20/1000

3.1 Drug Use—marijuana 776653.1 As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan Substance use at school—illicit drugs 25 23
112 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education Of new IES and OSEP research and evaluation publications that address causal questions, the percentage that describe studies that employ randomized experimental designs. 3.2 81 83 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan The percentage of students in grade 12 who participated in community service or volunteer work (replaces similar measure for students in grades 6–12). The percentage of new IES and OSEP research and evaluation projects funded by the Department that are deemed to be of high- quality by an independent review panel of qualified scientists. As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan The percentage of new IES and OSEP research and evaluation publications that are deemed to be of high quality by an independent review panel of qualified scientists. Of new IES and OSEP research and evaluation projects that address causal questions, the percentage that employ randomized experimental designs. The following measures or targets have been revised. (Revisions are shown in italics.) (continued) Objective Measure 2003 Target 2004 Target 2005 Target 2006 Target 2007 Target
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 113 The following measures or targets have been revised. (Revisions are shown in italics.) (continued) Objective Measure 2003 Target 2004 Target 2005 Target 2006 Target 2007 Target 4.2 The percentage of K–16 policymakers and administrators who report routinely considering evidence of effectiveness before adopting educational products and approaches.

X

5.15.35.36.16.16.1

Borrower indebtedness (expressedas average borrower payments)

for federal students loans as apercentage of borrower income.The percentage of performancebased contract actions.

Percentage of erroneous payments

(replaces number and amount oferroneous payments).The federal administrative cost pergrant transaction.

As printed inStrategic Plan

Set baseline Baseline – 5%

4.2 —› 1.4

The number of hits on the WhatWorks Clearinghouse. This

measure has been moved fromObjective 4.2 to Objective 1.4.

1,000,000

Unmet need as a percentage ofthe cost of attendance for lowincome independent studentswithout children.

44 43 42 41 40

45

4,000,000

As printed inStrategic Plan

As printed inStrategic Plan

As printed inStrategic Plan

As printed inStrategic Plan

As printed inStrategic Plan

As printed inStrategic Plan

As printed inStrategic Plan

As printed inStrategic Plan

As printed inStrategic Plan

As printed inStrategic Plan

As printed inStrategic Plan

45

Set baseline

Percentage of full-time, degreeor certificate-seeking students attwo-year institutions who graduate,earn a certificate, or transfer from

two-year institutions within three

years, overall, and bydisaggregated groups.
114 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education Clean opinion and leave the GAO High-Risk List through requested reconsideration of designation by GAO i. Clean opinion, ii. Address internal audit recommendations meeting the 95% standard, iii. Meet program integration goals in the FY 2004 FSA Performance Plan Percentage of principal offices that have identified recruitment needs in their principal office recruitment plan and that are taking actions to fill critical positions with needed skills (replaces meet skill gap reduction targets). The following measures or targets have been revised. (Revisions are shown in italics.) (continued) Objective 6.2 Measure 2003 Target 2004 Target 2005 Target 2006 Target 2007 Target 70 6.2 6.3 As printed in Strategic Plan 6.3 90 91 6.4 As printed in Strategic Plan The percentage of major IT investments that achieve less than a 10% variance of cost and schedule goals. 15% of the 2000 Fair Act Inventory 50% of the 2000 Fair Act Inventory TBD by OMB Student Financial Assistance programs will leave the GAO high-risk list and will not return. 60 50 Number of positions for which solicitations are issued under the revised A-76 guidelines The OMB burden-hour estimates of Department program data collections per year. (replaces positions competed under competitive sourcing). As printed in Strategic Plan As printed in Strategic Plan 36 M 92 Not be designated a High-Risk Program in GAO’s High-Risk Series Report issued January 2005 Not be designated a High-Risk Program in GAO’s High-Risk Series Report issued January 2007 i. Clean opinion, ii.Address internal audit recommendations meeting the 95% standard, iii. Meet program integration goals in the FY 2006 FSA Performance Plan
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 115 The following measures or targets have been revised. (Revisions are shown in italics.) (continued) Meet 100% of 2003 targets in FSA’s Sequencing Plan; re-evaluate targets for 2004– 2006 NA (Note: integration efforts will be completed by the end of FY 2006.) Percentage of programs amenable to participation by FBCOs in which novice applicant reform is implemented. (Replaces: percentage of appropriate programs in which the novice applicant procedures are implemented.) Objective 6.4 Measure 2003 Target 2004 Target 2005 Target 2006 Target 2007 Target Customer service (measures of service levels targeted by FSA transactions with public). 6.4 6.5 6.5 6.6 As printed in Strategic Plan The percentage of Department program dollars associated with programs reviewed under the PART process that demonstrate Integration of FSA effectiveness. processes and systems that work together to support FSA program delivery functions. The percentage of Department programs reviewed under the PART process that demonstrate effectiveness. Set baseline Maintain or improve Maintain or improve Maintain or improve Maintain or improve Meet 100% of 2004 targets in FSA’s Sequencing Plan Meet 100% of 2005 targets in FSA’s Sequencing Plan Meet 100% of 2006 targets in FSA’s Sequencing Plan 100 6.4 3.1 3.1 The percentage of Pell grant overpayments. 3.1 6.4 Oct.–Mar.: 40 days Apr.–Sep.: 30 days Timeliness of FSA major system reconciliations to the general ledger. 30 days 3.1 3.1 30 days 30 days 30 days 40 60 50 65
116 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education The following measures and targets have been added, effective FY 2004. Objective 1.2 Measure 2003 Target 2004 Target 2005 Target 2006 Target 2007 Target The number of states receiving State-Flex authority (stautory maximum of 7). NM 1.2 The percentage of LEAs with authority under State-Flex that make AYP. 2.4 2.5 2.5 3.2 3.2 5.1 Percentage of the nation’s teachers of core academic subjects that are “highly qualified” as defined by NCLB. The percentage of public secondary school (grades 9–12) students enrolled in foreign-language courses. The number of U.S. postsecondary students studying abroad. The percentage of students who think that most students in their classes who would dislike it if a student cheated on a test. The percentage of families who plan to help child pay for his/her education after high school. NMNMNMNM3417 NM

3

Set baselineSet baseline

43.0

164,000

3619

Set baseline

7

44.0

175,000

7

45.0

187,000

7

The percentage of students ingrade 12 who would dislike it if astudent intentionally did thingsto make his/her teachers angry.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 117 Percentage of EDPAS employees who have documented ratings of record. Percentage of loan programs providing online application capability. Percentage of grant programs providing online application capability. 15 50 75 The following measures and targets have been added, effective FY 2004. (continued) Objective 5.1 Measure 2003 Target 2004 Target 2005 Target 2006 Target 2007 Target NM 5.6 Number of students graduating from National Resource Center- funded programs. 5.6 6.2 6.2 6.2 6.3 6.3 Percentage of international postsecondary consortia projects that are institutionalized after the conclusion of the grant period. Percentage of performance, cash, and time-off awards that are given to employees with ratings in the top three levels in the EDPAS system. Percentage of personnel in the lowest two EDPAS rating levels who have performance improvement activities under way. Set baseline 46,000 47,000 48,000 49,000 50,000 42 44 46 48 50 100 100 100 70 80 90 80 90 90 95 100 100 The percentage of families believing they have enough information about the amount needed for college or vocational school to start planning how to pay for child’s education.
118 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education Number of FBCOs who receive technical assistance concerning programs amenable to their participation through the Web site, attendance at a workshop, telephonic consultation, direct meeting, or receipt of materials. The following measures and targets have been added, effective FY 2004. (continued) Objective 6.3 Measure 2003 Target 2004 Target 2005 Target 2006 Target 2007 Target Percentage of currently identified Tier 3 and 4 systems that complete Certification and Accreditation. NM 6.3 Percentage of currently identified Tier 1 and 2 systems that complete Certification and Accreditation. 6.4 6.6 6.6 6.6 Percentage of Pell grant erroneous payments. Number of grant applications from FBCOs in discretionary grant programs. Issuance of clear guidance that explains the ground rules for participation of faith-based groups in Department grant programs in accordance with applicable constitutional standards. 103.6 NM Set baseline NM 100 503.6 10,000 Baseline + 10% Department issues clear guidance 100 100 3.6 15,000 Baseline + 20% 3.6 20,000 Baseline + 25% 3.6 Percentage of program staff who work on programs open by statute to FBCOs and attorneys in OCG that receive training on the ground rules for the participation of FCBOs in the Department’s Grant programs NM 100 6.6
Appendixes

119
120 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Projected Fiscal Year 2004 Percentage of Funding by Goal

(dollars in millions)

Goal 1: Create a culture of achievement

Goal 2: Improve student achievement

Goal 3: Develop safe schools and strong character

Goal 4: Transform education into an evidence-based field

Goal 5: Enhance the quality of and access to postsecondary and adult education

Goal 6: Establish management excellence

Other: Civil rights activities

Source: Internal Department of Education estimates provided by the Budget Service.

Goal 2 – $30,489.8

51%

Goal 5 – $25,418.2

41%

Goal 3 – $851.0

1%

Goal 4 – $284.8

0%

Goal 6 – $957.5

2% Goal 1 – $3,301.1

5%

Other – $78.2

0%

Budget-to-Objective Crosswalk A

Appendix
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 121

Goals and Objectives

Projected Distribution of Fiscal Year 2004

Funding and Staffing by Goal and Objective

Staffing

(FTE)

S&E

($ in millions)

Program

($ in millions)

Total

($ in millions)

Goal 1: Create a culture of achievement

$61,382.7 $60,040.7 $1,342.1 4,625

3,303.1 3,235.2 67.9 535

Objective 1.1— Link Federal education funding to

accountability for results 1,345.5 1,311.5 34.0 300

Objective 1.2— Increase flexibility and local

control by the third grade 159.9 148.0 11.9 93

Objective 1.3— Increase information and options

for parents 1,032.6 1,013.3 19.3 119

Objective 1.4— Encourage the use of scientifically based methods within Federal

education programs

765.1 762.4 2.7 23

Goal 2: Improve student achievement 30,489.8 30,447.1 42.7 376

Objective 2.1— Ensure that all students read on

grade level by the third grade 10,996.6 10,998.1 8.4 67

Objective 2.2— Improve mathematics and science

achievement for all students 8,045.7 8,033.1 12.6 114

Objective 2.3— Improve the performance of all

high school students 4,604.2 4,588.7 15.5 140

Objective 2.4— Improve teacher and principal

quality 5,648.8 5,643.9 4.8 43

Improve student achievement 1,181.8 1,181.8 0.0 0

Objective 2.5— Improve U.S. students’ knowledge

of world languages, regions, and

international issues and build

international ties in the field of

education

12.7 11.5 1.2 12

Goal 3: Develop safe schools and strong

character 851.0 838.4 12.7 114

Objective 3.1— Ensure that our nation’s schools are safe and drug free and that

students are free of alcohol,

tobacco and other drugs

772.5 761.3 11.3 102

Objective 3.2— Promote strong character and citizenship among our nation’s

youth

63.0 61.6 1.4 12

Develop safe schools and strong character 15.5 15.5 0.0 0

Goal 4: Transform education into an

evidence-based field 284.8 236.4 48.4 392

Objective 4.1— Raise the quality of research funded or conducted by the

Department

157.1 114.7 42.4 359

Objective 4.2— Increase the relevance of our

research in order to meet the

needs of our customers

127.8 121.8 6.0 33
122 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Goals and Objectives

Projected Distribution of Fiscal Year 2004

Funding and Staffing by Goal and Objective

Staffing

(FTE)

S&E

($ in millions)

Program

($ in millions)

Total

($ in millions)

Goal 5: Enhance the quality of and access to

postsecondary and adult education 25,418.2 25,280.6 137.6 656

Objective 5.1— Reduce the gaps in college access

and completion among student

populations differing by race/

ethnicity, socioeconomic status,

and disability while increasing

the educational attainment of all

1,522.2 1,497.8 24.4 212

Objective 5.2— Strengthen accountability of

postsecondary education institutions 39.9 28.5 11.4 92

Enhance the quality of and access to

postsecondary and adult education 14.4 14.4 0.0 0

Goal 6: Establish management excellence 957.5 0.0 957.5 1,838

Objective 6.1— Develop and maintain financial

integrity and management and

internal controls

94.3 0.0 94.3 489

Objective 6.2— Improve the strategic

management of the Department’s

human capital

176.7 0.0 176.7 197

Objective 5.3— Establish effective funding

mechanisms for postsecondary

education

19,587.4 19,523.8 63.6 50

Objective 5.4— Strengthen HBCUs, Hispanicserving institutions, and tribal

colleges and universities

562.4 557.7 4.8 40

Objective 5.5— Enhance the literacy and

employment skills of American

adults

3,583.4 3,553.3 30.1 232

Objective 5.6— Increase the capacity of U.S.

postsecondary institutions to

teach world languages, area

studies, and international issues

108.5 105.2 3.3 30

Objective 6.3— Manage IT resources, using electronic government, to

improve services for our

customers and partners

116.0 0.0 116.0 118

Objective 6.4— Modernize the SFA programs and

reduce their high-risk status 557.4 0.0 557.4 957

Objective 6.5— Achieve budget and performance

integration to link funding

decisions to results

8.0 0.0 8.0 54

Objective 6.6— Leverage the contributions of faith-based and community

organizations to increase the

effectiveness of Department

programs

2.6 0.0 2.6 23

Objective 6.7— By becoming a high-performance,

customer-focused organization,

earn the President’s Quality

Award

2.5 0.0 2.5 0

Other 78.2 2.934 75.3 714

Note—All funds under “Other” are attributable to civil rights activities

Source: Internal Department of Education estimates provided by Budget Service
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 123

6.7.A.a 383

2.4.C.e 125

2.4.C.f 127

2.4.D.a 142

3.1.A.b 143

3.1.B.b 149

3.1.C.a 151

3.2.B.a 156

4.1.A.a 161

4.1.A.b 162

5.1.A.a 179

5.1.A.b 180

5.1.A.c 178

5.1.B.a 182

5.1.B.b 184

5.1.C.b 188

5.1.C.c 185

5.1.C.d 186

5.1.C.e 187

5.2.A.a 189, 190, 191

5.3.A.a 196, 197, 198

5.4.A.b 206

5.4.A.c 199, 200, 201

5.4.B.a 202, 203, 204

5.5.A.a 220

5.5.A.b 218

5.5.B.a 209

5.5.B.b 207

5.5.B.c 208

5.5.C.c 221

5.5.D.a 213

5.5.D.b 214

6.1.A.d 224

5.5.C.f 210

2.1.A.a 72

2.1.B.b 82

2.1.B.c 81

2.1.C.a 88

2.1.D.a 90

2.1.D.b 91

2.1.D.c 92

2.2.A.a 101

2.2.A.b 102

2.2.A.c 103

2.2.B.a 96

2.2.B.b 97

2.2.B.d 95

2.2.C.a 98

2.2.C.c 99

2.3.A.b 108

2.3.A.c 107

2.3.D.a 116

2.3.D.c 117

2.3.D.d 115

2.4.A.a 118

2.4.A.b 120, 134

2.4.A.e 121

2.4.B.a 137

2.4.B.b 131

2.4.C.a 124

2.4.C.b 129

1.2.E.a 39

1.3.A.e 51

1.3.A.f 52

1.3.B.a 46

1.3.B.g 44

1.3.B.h 45

1.3.D.a 58

1.3.D.b 60

1.3.D.c 62

1.3.E.a 40

1.3.E.b 41

1.3.E.c 42

1.2.D.d 68

B

Appendix Action Step Crosswalk:

2003–2004

FY 2004

Action

Step

Corresponding

Action Step

in 2003

Annual Plan

1.1.A.a 3, 7

1.1.A.d 10

1.1.A.e 4, 8, 9

1.1.C.a 17

1.1.D.c 11

1.1.E.c 19

1.1.E.e 21

1.1.F.a 16, 34, 57, 71

1.2.A.a 22

1.2.A.b 23

1.2.A.c 24

1.2.A.d 25

1.2.B.a 26

1.2.B.b 27

1.2.D.a 36

1.2.D.b 37

1.2.D.c 38

FY 2004

Action

Step

Corresponding

Action Step

in 2003

Annual Plan

1.4.A.b 168

FY 2004

Action

Step

Corresponding

Action Step

in 2003

Annual Plan

FY 2004

Action

Step

Corresponding

Action Step

in 2003

Annual Plan

1.4.A.a 66

2.4.C.d 126

2.4.E.a 140 5.5.D.c 217
124 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Information Quality Guidelines C

Appendix

Soon after the inception of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the Department

of Education identified data quality as a major challenge to our successful implementation of the

Act. In the early 1990s, the Department did not regularly have reliable information about its

programs available to allow managers to make program decisions. As a result of our commitment

to improve our data for GPRA reporting, the Department launched a Data Quality Initiative.

In 2002, in response to Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act

and OMB guidance on its provisions, the Department developed Information Quality Guidelines to

guide program managers in preparing information for dissemination, release to the public.

Through development of these guidelines, employee training, and other mechanisms, the

Department continues to make the improvement of data quality a top priority. The Department’s

Strategic Plan emphasizes the importance of information quality. For example, Strategic Goal 4 is

to transform education into an evidence-based field. Under this goal, the Department seeks to

ensure that the Department’s research is of the highest quality and that high-quality research is

disseminated widely. The Department also relies on high-quality information in the administration

of its programs. For example, Objective 1.1 under the Strategic Plan requires the Department to

link federal education funding to accountability for results. Consequently, programs that cannot

demonstrate evidence of effectiveness with high-quality information will be candidates for reform

or elimination.

The Department’s new Information Quality Guidelines, which apply to the release of information to

the public, are presented below in an abbreviated format.

Information Quality Guidelines

The Department of Education’s Information Quality Guidelines (Guidelines) reflect the Department’s

policy and procedures for reviewing and substantiating the quality of the information it disseminates

(e.g., reports, studies, and summaries) and provide an administrative mechanism that allows affected

persons to seek and obtain, where appropriate, the correction of information that does not comply

with the Guidelines. The Department’s Guidelines, along with those issued by OMB, represent a

performance goal for the Department and will improve data management within the Department.

Our Guidelines require that Department staff treat information quality as integral to the creation,

collection, maintenance, and dissemination of information, and review products before they are

disseminated to ensure that they are consistent with these Guidelines.

Consistent with guidance from OMB, we consider three factors in assessing information quality for

any information that is to be disseminated: utility, objectivity and integrity. They are intended to

ensure that information the Department disseminates is useful, accurate, reliable, unbiased, and

secure.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 125

The Department disseminates various kinds of information, which must be reviewed for utility,

objectivity, and integrity, but the specific application of these factors is targeted to the specific

needs and appropriateness for various types of publications. We have identified the four most

common types of information products:

• General Information

• Research and Evaluation Information

• Administrative and Program Data

• Statistical Data

Although the guidelines for integrity are the same across all four types, guidelines for utility and

objectivity have been established for each of these types of products. Exhibit 1 shows a sample of

an information quality checklist for statistical data (other than National Center for Education

Statistics data, which have separate published standards).

The Guidelines also provide that the level of quality assurance for information must be tied to its

level of importance. Influential information, that is, information that will or does have a clear and

substantial impact on public policies or private sector decisions, must meet a higher level of quality.

It must be reproducible according to commonly accepted scientific, financial, or statistical standards

for that type of data. It must also be accompanied by supporting documentation that allows an

external user to reproduce it, taking into account any ethical and confidentiality restraints. In the

case of analytic results, the mathematical and statistical processes used to produce the report must be

explained in sufficient detail to allow an independent analyst to substantially reproduce the findings

by using original data and identical methods. In situations where the public cannot access the data

owing to compelling interests such as confidentiality protections, the Department will apply and

document reliability and validity checks.

The Guidelines also detail the process by which any person can request the correction of

information disseminated by the Department that does not comply with Department and OMB

information quality guidelines.

A complete copy of the Department’s Information Quality Guidelines is available at http://

www.ed.gov/offices/OCIO/info_quality/final_webtext.pdf.
126 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Exhibit 1

Information Quality Guidelines

Sample Checklist Items for Statistical Data

Utility

Is the information grammatically correct and clearly written in plain English?

Is the audience identified?

Does the information meet the needs of intended users and help the Department fulfill

its mission?

Does the information fill needs that are identified through internal review, legislative

mandates, or input from users outside the Department?

Objectivity

Statement of Purpose

Where does the product clearly describe the goals of the study?

Where does the report provide the reason the information is provided, its potential

uses, and cautions as to inappropriate extractions or conclusions?

Research Based

Where is the description of the data collection process with survey instruments that

were properly developed and tested?

Where is the description of how the response rates were monitored during data

collection to ensure that the respondents are representative of the population?

Where does the product show findings and data collection properly documented with

an evaluation of the quality of the data including its known limitations (e.g., missing

values, amount of nonresponse)?

Sources

Where is the reliability of the data source(s) addressed?

Where does the report include the identification of other possible sources of

potentially corroborating or conflicting information?

Burden Reduction

Where does the report describe every effort made to minimize the amount of time

required for responses?

Reproducibility for Influential Information

Where is a description of the analytical work in sufficient detail to ensure that the

findings could be reproduced using the same data and methods of analysis?

Review and Release

Was all work conducted and released in a timely manner?

What are the procedures to correct any identified errors?

Integrity

Have we safeguarded personally identifiable information?

Have we ensured protection from unauthorized disclosure, alteration, loss, or

destruction?
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 127

In FY 2003 the Department will begin a new generation of evaluation studies that are designed to

produce rigorous scientific evidence on the effectiveness of education programs and practices. The

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 repeatedly emphasizes the importance of adopting scientifically

proven educational practices and programs. However school superintendents, principals, and

teachers do not have the information they need in order to make sound decisions for improving

instruction and raising student achievement. In many areas, the scientific evidence on the

effectiveness of education programs is weak, inconsistent, or nonexistent. The evaluation designs

commonly used in education produce statistically biased results that provide little guidance to

educators as to what to do next.

On November 6, 2002, the President signed the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002,

establishing a new National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE) of the

Institute of Education Sciences. The creation of this Center represents an important shift in the

purposes of program evaluation and the types of methodology used in evaluation studies. In the

past, most program evaluation studies have focused on issues of program implementation. Issues

such as targeting of federal resources, compliance with federal laws and regulations, characteristics

of program participants, and types of services provided have been the focus of federal program

evaluation studies.

The research methodologies used to answer questions of implementation have been surveys of states,

districts, schools, and teachers. Case studies to provide an in-depth look at program implementation

have accompanied these surveys. Findings from these studies are of great value to the Congress, the

Department, and educators, because they assess the degree to which federal programs are being

implemented as intended, describe the problems and challenges to implementation and identify

states and districts that have made significant progress.

In FY 2003 the Department will launch a set of implementation evaluation studies in a wide range of

areas including ESEA Title I, ESEA Title II, Reading First, Safe and Drug Free Schools, Education

Technology, Comprehensive School Reform, and Traditional American History. These studies will, for

the most part, administer surveys to nationally representative samples of districts, schools, and

teachers. Data from these studies will provide a national picture of the progress made in

implementation of federal programs.

As important as implementation studies are, they do not answer the key questions of program

effectiveness and impact. Complementing the new implementation studies, NCEE will launch a set of

evaluation studies designed to answer questions of program effectiveness. Past efforts to answer

questions of program effectiveness have been hampered by weak evaluation designs and by

misidentification of the key policy question.

In the area of evaluation designs, the Department has relied too heavily on studies that correlate

trends in student achievement to changes in education practices. Although this type of study is

useful, inferences about whether the changes in education practices caused the changes in student

achievement cannot be made. In other cases, evaluation studies have used some type of quasiD

Appendix Overview of New Directions

for Program Evaluation
128 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

experimental design in which, for example, students who participated in the program are compared

against a “similar” group of students. Although this kind of design is superior to a correlational

study, it is very difficult to adequately “match” two groups on all relevant factors. In either type of

design, reliable inferences about the effectiveness of a program or practice are very risky.

In an effort to significantly raise the quality of scientific evidence on program effectiveness, NCEE

will launch a generation of evaluation studies that intend to use the most rigorous evaluation

designs possible. In many cases, the Center will use randomized trials in which schools, teachers or

students (depending on the specific design) will be randomly assigned to an educational program or

the control condition. In some cases, the control condition will be the educational practice or

program that has been followed in the past. In other cases, two or more innovations or programs will

be compared, both of which are presumed to better than typical practice in the schools or districts

that are participating. An experimental design is the most reliable and accurate way of estimating

the impact of an educational intervention. Commonly used in medical research, randomized trials

have only recently been employed in educational research. However there are now several examples

of evaluation studies using this type of design in areas such as dropout prevention, family literacy,

after-school programs, schools within schools, school-based drug prevention, early reading, adult

literacy, bilingual education, alternative teacher certification, and summer school. The existence of

these studies clearly shows that randomized trials in education evaluation can be done and not in

just a few classrooms or schools.

In some instances, randomized trials will not be feasible to conduct. For those studies, designs such

as interrupted time series or carefully matched comparison groups will be used. However in all

cases, the impact evaluation studies are intended to answer a bottom-line question of causality (i.e.,

“Did Program X raise student achievement?”). The evaluation studies supported by the Center will

use only those methodologies that can provide credible scientific evidence to answer questions of

causality.

As part of this growing effort to produce high-quality scientific evidence on program effectiveness,

NCEE will launch in FY 2003 several program-effectiveness studies in the following program areas:

ESEA Title I, Reading First, Early Reading First, ESEA Title II, Bilingual Education, Even Start, 21st

Century, Education Technology, and Charter Schools. In each area, the evaluation will employ a

random assignment of schools, teachers, or students to an educational program or a comparison

program. Random assignment, otherwise known as a lottery, is generally accepted by participants as

fair and equitable when a new program that is considered desirable cannot be made available to

everyone. NCEE hopes that findings from these studies will provide a significant contribution to the

growing body of credible scientific evidence on effective educational practices and programs.

A second problem with past impact studies is that they have focused on the wrong question. In

some cases, studies have attempted to answer the question of overall program impact. However,

many of the federal education programs are “funding streams” that provide funds to states and

districts for the support of a wide range of activities that are decided at the local level. There is no

specific list of educational programs and practices that all schools must adopt. Attempting to answer

the question of overall impact provides very little useful information for program improvement when

the federal program is not intended to be specific as to what should be taught and how. Studying a

representative sample of grantees of a federal “funding stream” has typically produced a finding of

“no impact.” That is not surprising because we would expect some districts and schools to make

wise decisions on the use of federal funds and others to make poor choices. The “no impact”

finding provides no information as to what specifically educators should do to raise student

achievement.
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 129

What is needed for program improvement is evidence on the effectiveness of specific programs or

practices that are supported with federal funds. Knowing which programs are effective and

ineffective would provide concrete guidance on what should be done. NCEE hopes that their

evaluation studies will begin to provide such guidance. The Center plans to conduct rigorous impact

studies of promising educational programs and practices that are supported through federal funds.

In some areas where there is limited evidence that any intervention is effective, the Center will

support the development or modification of interventions based on sound theory and use

randomized trials to test their effectiveness.

In summary, the Department’s evaluation strategy is to address questions of both program

implementation and effectiveness. We plan to track the progress of the NCLB Act as well as to begin

to build a substantial body of credible scientific evidence that schools and teachers can use to raise

student achievement for all children.
130 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education Reading First State Grants Formula ESEA Title I List of Planned Evaluation Studies Lead Office Study Status Study Style Study Name Program Type Program Formula IES New Design for an Impact Evaluation of Educational Interventions PPSS Continuing Evaluation of Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts PPSS New National Longitudinal Study of Title I Schools PPSS Descriptive Study Continuing School-Level Assessment Database PPSS Continuing State Education and Accountability Indicators PPSS Continuing Strategies to Increase the Graduation Rate for Migrant Secondary Students IES Continuing Support for NCES Early Childhood Longitudinal Study IES New Design for an Impact Evaluation of the Reading First Program IES New Evaluation of the Reading First Program PPSS New Reading First Implementation Study IES New Evaluation of Even Start Interventions (CLIO) Even Start Formula IES Continuing Design for an Impact Evaluation of Alternative Certification Programs ESEA Title II Teacher Quality State Grants Formula IES New IES New Impact Evaluation of Teacher Professional Development PPSS New Implementation and Quality of Title II Activities

PPSS New Transition to Teachers Evaluation

Impact StudyDescriptive StudyDescriptive StudyDescriptive StudyDescriptive StudyDescriptive StudyImpact StudyImpact StudyDescriptive StudyImpact StudyImpact StudyImpact StudyImpact StudyDescriptive StudyDescriptive Study

Impact Evaluation of Alternative TeacherCertification Programs

Continuing Longitudinal Assessment of CSR Implementation and Outcomes

Continuing Student Achievement Supplement

Formula Descriptive Study

Descriptive Study

ComprehensiveSchool Reform

IES

IES
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 131 IDEA Part B Grants to States Formula OSERS/ Budget Service Descriptive Study New Federal and State Monitoring of Grants Descriptive Study Continuing National Longitudinal Transition Study Descriptive Study Continuing Special Education Expenditures Project Descriptive Study Continuing Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study Descriptive Study Continuing State and Local Implementation of IDEA Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Formula Analysis of State Performance Reports Design for an Impact Evaluation of School- Based Drug Prevention and Safety Programs Implementation of Middle School (National) Coordinator Program PPSS Descriptive Study Continuing Quality of the SDFS Program PPSS Descriptive Study New PPSS Descriptive Study Continuing IES Impact Study New List of Planned Evaluation Studies (continued) Lead Office Study Status Study Style Study Name Program Type Program Educational Technology State Grants Formula 21st Century Community Learning Centers Formula IES Impact Study Continuing Design for an Impact Evaluation of Educational Technology Interventions IES Impact Study New Impact Evaluation of Educational Technology PPSS Descriptive Study Continuing National Educational Technology Trends Study (NETTS) IES Impact Study New Impact Evaluation of After-School Educational Interventions PPSS Descriptive Study New Implementation of State-Administered Program IES Impact Study Continuing Program Implementation and Impact Formula IES Impact Study New Impact of ELL Interventions ESEA Title III English Language Acquisition State Grants Impact Aid Evaluation Design Paper Impact Aid Formula PPSS Descriptive Study New
132 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education Discretionary Impact Study New Impact Evaluation of Charter Schools Descriptive Study Continuing Public Charter School Program Evaluation Discretionary Impact Study New Impact of Early Reading First Charter Schools Grants Early Reading First Design for an Impact Evaluation of Adult Literacy Programs Pilot Analysis of Student Attendance, Instruction, Achievement, Employment, and Earnings of Adult Education (ABE and ESL) Participants Descriptive Study New Participation of State VR Agencies in the Ticket to Work Program Impact Study Continuing Project and Evaluation Design of Demonstrations to Improve the Literacy Skills of VR Consumers Descriptive Study Continuing State VR Agency Performance Descriptive Study Design for a 2nd Longitudinal Study of the VR Program OSERS/Budget Service Vocational Rehabilitation State Grants List of Planned Evaluation Studies (continued) Lead Office Study Status Study Style Study Name Program Type Program Formula Descriptive Study New State and Local Implementation and Impact of IDEA Part C Descriptive Study Continuing National Early Intervention Longitudinal Study Formula OSERS/Budget Service Descriptive Study Continuing Pre-Elementary Longitudinal Study Discretionary OSERS/Budget Service Descriptive Study Continuing State Improvement Program Evaluation Formula OSERS/Budget Service Formula Descriptive Study Value Added of Dual/Concurrent Enrollment Descriptive Study Analysis of Curriculum Based Exit Exams Formula IES Impact Study New PPSS Descriptive Study Continuing IES PPSS IES IDEA Grants for Infants and Families IDEA Preschool Grants IDEA State Improving Grants Vocational Education and Tech-Prep State Grants Adult Education State Grants New New New IES PPSS
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 133 Teaching of Traditional American History Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE) Discretionary Impact Study New Design for an Impact Evaluation of Magnet School Programs Magnet Schools Descriptive Study Continuing Evaluation of the Magnet School Assistance Program IES PPSS List of Planned Evaluation Studies (continued) Lead Office Study Style Study Name Program Type Program Study Status Discretionary Discretionary PPSS Descriptive Study Teaching American History Program Evaluation PPSS Descriptive Study Evaluation of FIPSE Comprehensive Program Discretionary Descriptive Study PPSS Descriptive Study McNair Post-Baccalaureate Achievement PPSS Descriptive Study PPSS Impact Study National Study of Student Support Services Program Talent Search Program Evaluation Upward Bound Impact Evaluation Descriptive Study PPSS PPSS Discretionary Discretionary Descriptive Study Improving Literacy Through Libraries Program Evaluation Descriptive Study Voluntary Public School Choice Evaluation PPSS PPSS Discretionary Formula Descriptive Study Charter School Facilities Demo Evaluation Descriptive Study Analysis of State Performance Reports Descriptive Study Condition of Migrant Education Act Annual Report PPSS New Continuing Continuing Continuing Continuing Continuing Continuing New Continuing New Continuing Continuing GEAR UP Evaluation Discretionary PPSS PPSS TRIO (Upward Bound, Talent Search, McNair, Student Support Services) Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP) Improving Literacy Through Libraries Voluntary Public School Choice Charter School Facilities Migrant Education
134 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education List of Planned Evaluation Studies (continued) Lead Office Study Style Study Name Program Type Program Study Status PPSS PPSS School Leadership Program Descriptive Study Troops to Teachers Evaluation Descriptive Study Literature Review Discretionary Discretionary PPSS Descriptive Study New NAEP Evaluation ——— New New Troops to Teachers NAEP
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 135 Glossary
136 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

ABE Adult Basic Education

AEFLA Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (Title II of WIA)

AP Advanced Placement

AYP Adequate Yearly Progress

Blueprint Blueprint of Management Excellence

BPR Biennial Performance Report

CAMP College Assistance Migrant Program

CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

COOP Continuity of Operations Plan

CPIC Capital Planning Investment Control

CSR Comprehensive School Reform

DEOA Department of Education Organization Act

DLOS Direct Loan Origination System

E-gov Electronic government

ED Department of Education

EDA Education of the Deaf Act

EDCAPS Education Department’s Central Automated Processing System

EDPAS Education Department Performance Appraisal System

ELL English Language Learner

EMT Executive Management Team

ESEA Elementary and Secondary Education Act

ESL English as a Second Language

ESRA Education Sciences Reform Act

FAIR Federal Activities Inventory Reform Act

FBCO Faith-Based and Community Organizations

Glossary of Abbreviations

and Acronyms
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 137

FIPSE Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education

FMFIA Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act

FPDS Federal Procurement Data Source

FSA Office of Federal Student Aid

FY Fiscal Year

GAANN Graduate Assistance in Areas of National Need

GAO General Accounting Office

GEAR UP Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs

GPAS General Performance Appraisal System

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

GRS Graduation Rate Survey

GS General Schedule

Guidelines Information Quality Guidelines

HEA Higher Education Act

HBCU Historically Black Colleges and Universities

HSI Hispanic-Serving Institutions

IASA Improving America’s Schools Act

IDEA Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

IDUES Institutional Development and Undergraduate Education Programs

IES Institute of Education Sciences

IHE Institution of Higher Education

IPEDS Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System

IRB Investment Review Board

IT Information Technology

LEA Local Educational Agency

MVHAA McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act

MIT Management Improvement Team

NAAL National Assessment of Adult Literacy

NAEP National Assessment of Educational Progress

NCES National Center for Education Statistics
138 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

NCLB No Child Left Behind Act

NETTS National Educational Technology Trends Study

NHES National Household Education Surveys Program

NHSDA National Household Survey on Drug Abuse

NICHD National Institute of Child Health and Human Development

NIDRR National Institute on Disability and Rehabilitation Research

NPD National Professional Development

NPSAS National Postsecondary Student Aid Survey

NSLDS National Student Loan Data System

OCFO Office of the Chief Financial Officer

OCIO Office of the Chief Information Officer

ODS Office of the Deputy Secretary

OELA Office of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and Academic

Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students.

OESE Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

OGC Office of the General Counsel

OIG Office of Inspector General

OM Office of Management

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPE Office of Postsecondary Education

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OSDFS Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools

OSEP Office of Special Education Programs

OSERS Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services

OVAE Office of Vocational and Adult Education

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool

PBDMI Performance-Based Data Management Initiative

PBS Public Broadcasting System

PMA President’s Management Agenda

PPSS Policy and Program Studies Service
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 139

RA Rehabilitation Act

REAP Rural Education Achievement Program

RFMS Recipient Financial Management System

RIMG Regulatory Information Management Group

RSA Rehabilitation Services Administration

SAS Strategic Accountability Service

SDFSCA Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act

SEA State Educational Agency

SERS School Evaluation and Reporting System

SES Senior Executive Service

SFA Student Financial Assistance

TASSIE Title I Accountability Systems and School Improvement Efforts

TCU Tribal Colleges and Universities

VR Vocational Rehabilitation

YRBS Youth Risk Behavior Survey

VTEA Vocational and Technical Education Act

WIA Workforce Investment Act
140 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education
U.S. Department of Education Annual Plan FY 2004 141 Bibliography
142 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education

Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget. The President’s Management

Agenda. Washington, D.C., 2002.

U.S. Department of Education. Annual Plan 2002-2003. Washington, D.C., 2002.

U.S. Department of Education. Blueprint for Management Excellence. Washington, D.C., 2001.

U.S. Department of Education. Culture of Accountability Team Report. Washington, D.C., 2001.

U.S. Department of Education. Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Summary. Washington, D.C., 2002.

U.S. Department of Education. FY 2002 Performance and Accountability Report. Washington, D.C.,

2003.

U.S. Department of Education. Strategic Plan 2002-2007. Washington, D.C., 2002.

Bibliography
12 Annual Plan FY 2004 U.S. Department of Education